[devwastaken]

The case likely doesn't have legal merit. If we could get money damages for actions of others through online platforms there'd be easy money to be made. A reasonable person would also not try to sue companies for this.

Given those two together, it's not difficult to infer.

[heavyset_go]

The only thing shielding companies from liability is Section 230 of the CDA. Without it, companies could be found liable for user generated content that they host.

There are literally thousands of lawsuits filed every year seeking liability from companies that are thrown out simply because of the CDA. I wouldn't say that those thousands of lawsuits are pressed by unreasonable people.

That aside, at least to me, if you're going to provide a platform for children to interact with other people, you better make sure those other people can't and aren't using your platform to exploit kids.

[lotsofpulp]

> That aside, at least to me, if you're going to provide a platform for children to interact with other people, you better make sure those other people can't and aren't using your platform to exploit kids.

What if an abuser walks into a theme park or indoor play yard or ice skating rink? Should the operator be liable for monitoring the behavior and speech of every adult in the facility?

[heavyset_go]

I'm friends with someone who worked on a discussion board system for a popular kids' show channel. Every post was first read by moderators before being allowed to be seen. It's a 100% attainable goal for companies that actually care about providing safe places for children to interact online.

[rrwo]

Yes, and in some parts of the world they are obligated to run background checks on their employees or contractors.