[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...