[lostcolony]

So there's a nuance there you're missing.

Newspaper publishing is opt in; that is, anything published they chose to publish.

Websites that allow third parties to post content on them is opt out; that is, anything published did so without initial moderation.

If a website operator posts their own statements, they can theoretically be found to be libelous. They can't be held accountable for posts by other people. Newspapers potentially can (though I've never seen a court case where a newspaper was sued for something in the Opinion section), but they -chose- to publish that item.

Realistically websites should be thought of as a public bulletin board. Should you be able to sue the person who put up the bulletin board, for content that was posted to the bulletin board by other people?

[leereeves]

I understand the nuance you describe, but the situation I described is, at times, a problem with Section 230. For example:

> When a US Army reservist found herself at the center of a conspiracy about the coronavirus earlier this year, her life was upended.

> Hoax peddlers on the internet falsely claimed that Maatje Benassi was somehow the world's COVID-19 patient zero. Over time, conspiracy theorists posted at least 70 videos across multiple YouTube channels claiming that Benassi had brought the virus into the world. Along with those videos came death threats, which Benassi and her husband, Matt, took seriously.

> But at first, the couple did not know how to respond. Trolls hiding behind aliases on the internet were almost impossible to find, and the Benassis could not sue YouTube for allowing the content to be posted because of a now-controversial law known as Section 230.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/section-230-60-minutes-2021-01-...

[ghaff]

But absent Section 230, YouTube would presumably be in a position where it couldn't take down any content that wasn't actually illegal in some way.

[tony101]

My understanding is that you would sue the person who originally posted the content. You can sue "John Doe" and subpoena the social media companies and internet service providers for information to identify the poster.

https://revisionlegal.com/internet-law/defamation-attorney/i...

[edoceo]

Seems reasonable, just costs a lot of money. The cost of harassment should out-weigh the cost of protection here tho.

A) post video to YouTube for $0

b) contact lawyer to subpoena YT and then sue a jerk? $50,000

[lostcolony]

Which the removal or not of Section 230 doesn't change. No matter what the law says, no matter what culpability exists, if you can't afford a lawyer, you're not getting anything. An issue with the law in the US, but hardly relevant to the issue at hand.

[leereeves]

But YouTube has deep pockets, so if you could sue YouTube, lawyers would work on contingency. What lawyer would take a John Doe case on contingency?

Worse, what if the defamer is able to hide their identity or from a jursdiction that doesn't care about an order from US courts? In that case, even paying for a lawyer won't help.

[belorn]

If you have infinitive flow of third-party posts, where is the distinction between choosing to publish or choosing to not publish?

If you add black to a white background, you get black. If you remove white of a white background, you get black.

If the intention behind the action is the same, and the outcome is the same, should the legality of it hinge on the action?