[heavyset_go]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Section 230 of the CDA entails[1]:

> Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"

What Section 230 says is that all providers of interactive computer services are not liable for user content. That's it. It doesn't matter what the interactive computer service does, or publishes or doesn't publish. If you're a provider of an interactive computer service, you're shielded from liability for user uploaded content.

[1] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

[noofen]

Thanks for the details. I'm curious though, couldn't traditional publications just say their articles are "user content" and absolve themselves of all legal liability, like defamation?

[TulliusCicero]

Assuming that content was paid for by the company, either by contractors or employees, I think a court could see through that being called 'user content' pretty easily.

If it's just uncompensated randos...well then it wouldn't be a traditional publication anymore.

[akersten]

Since the work was generated in the course of that employee's duty with the company, I'm not sure why you think the company would be absolved of liability for the content they themselves commissioned. That employee is the company in this capacity.

[noofen]

Yea, that makes sense. I'm wondering how it works with something like TikTok's Creator Fund [1] or Twitter Blue content creators (who might be compensated in the future), or even Medium.

[1]: https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-gb/tiktok-creator-fund-your-q...

[akersten]

I'm sure that if TikTok reimbursed a creator for content that was disparaging/illegal, the chain of suit would involve both the creator and TikTok. Barring complex indemnification agreements in whatever contracts were signed. S230 doesn't magically make companies "immune from everything" like a lot of people seem to think. It just correctly clarifies that person A posting on site B generated the content, and is who you should sue first if it's disparaging.

That's "how it works" with the laws in place today, there doesn't seem to be a deficiency.

This is likely a reason why YT and others demonetize controversial videos - for their own preservation, they don't want to fund the creation of content that might lure a suit.

I don't think anything's broken here. Definitely nothing that would be fixed by this Florida bill.

[heavyset_go]

> S230 doesn't magically make companies "immune from everything" like a lot of people seem to think

However, some companies do think that Section 230 shields them from all liability for their interactive computer services, and lower-level courts seem to agree with them[1].

The case here[1][2] has made its way to the Supreme Court[2], though.

[1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/herrick-v-grindr-why-section-230...

[2] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/publicati...