|
|
|
|
|
|
by rektide
2057 days ago
|
|
|
My understanding was that Section 230 was to protect platforms from liability. It was not to create new restrictions on how they must or must not otherwise regulate & shape speech on their platform. This implication that platforms have to allow anyone to say whatever they want unless it's a certain pre-set class of illegal speech, lest they become some other service class with additional liabilities for speech, seems facetiously misguided & contrary to all evidence there is for how Section 230 was proposed, discussed, and how it describes itself. |
|
|
It may be, I'm certainly no expert. As a layman I've been led to believe that if you alter user-generated content you toe the line of being classified as a publisher as opposed to a platform. And my understanding of platform versus publisher is that the latter is legally liable for the site's content and thus allowed to be moderated more heavily than the former. Again, I have zero experience with writing/interpreting law so recognize that I could be wrong here...