[komali2]

In that case, isn't this a similar situation platforms like Twitter or Youtube find themselves in, where they don't want to take full responsibility for moderation or suddenly they're liable for all the harmful content on their platforms, but on the other hand they're forced to moderate just enough to avoid governments forcing them to be on the hook?

It seems like such a weird place to be in.

[toast0]

Section 230 seems to say they can moderate if they want, and have no obligation to do so, or to not do so.

Seems like they're motivated to moderate in this case, because this usage costs them money and the users that sign up for this type of usage tend not to pay their bills.

IMHO, it might make more sense to work on usage tiers, sales calls, and collecting good payment before incurring large costs, more than a pipeline to inspect user content, including sending it to an uninvolved third party (Google Vision), but maybe that's just me.

[jaimex2]

Agreed. Why you would accept stopping the buck and not work with your legal team to proxy litigation the same way all big tech does is beyond me.

[duskwuff]

1) You can't effectively proxy litigation to J. Random Pirate with fake contact information and a stolen credit card.

2) Even if you did, you're still out the cost of the services they used, which can be considerable (especially if you let their service keep running until the DMCA notices show up).