|
|
|
|
|
|
by krapp
19 days ago
|
|
|
>So ActivityPub (ie self hosted Mastodon and similar) would be unaffected as would Bluesky with a self hosted PDS (IIUC). Only as long as you don't allow third party comments or run a multi-user instance. Then you're just as legally liable for that content as the centralized platforms. >Further, paid hosting services for those would be unaffected for the same reason that we don't require section 230 to protect the car rental company if someone uses the vehicle to commit a crime. Mixed metaphors aside, Section 230 is the law that "protects the car rental company if someone uses the vehicle to commit a crime." If the car rental company is the platform, then prior to Section 230 (and after its repeal) they were and would be held responsible. Section 230 just establishes that the party posting content is liable for that content, just as the person using a vehicle to commit a crime is responsible for that crime. |
|
|
Well yeah, that was exactly my point.
> Mixed metaphors aside
It wasn't a metaphor, I meant that quite literally. If you rent a car there is no section 230 protection and yet the company is not liable unless they knowingly aid you in committing a crime. Network service offerings aren't magically different. Selling something (in a sufficiently neutral manner) does not generally leave you with any liability for the customer's actions.
It's only when you start operating your own service that republishes user submitted content that section 230 suddenly becomes relevant (at least AFAIK). If you want an analogy I guess it would be like offering free use of your fleet of vehicles to strangers off the street with zero due diligence and then the law exempting you from liability for any subsequent actions of those strangers.
Anyway I'm not advocating to repeal it. Personally I think the issue is that social media operators editorialize via algorithm, abusing section 230 to dodge responsibility.