Posted on 02/05/2021 9:33:39 AM PST by Olog-hai
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" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content.
Without Section 230, Free Republic becomes the de facto publisher of the user content, and is responsible for it. So if you accuse Person X of being a pedophile, they could sue you AND Free Republic. With section 230, FR isn't liable for what users say.
AWS did not have an at-will agreement with Parler, and they lied about Parler violating any terms of service with respect to content, thus treating them as publisher in spite of whatever Section 230 may say.
The matter of publisher versus platform when it comes to YouTube does not protect that platform’s content providers either. Hence an ongoing migration to Rumble et al.
Not very convincing that Section 230 protects any platform and/or that its wording will undermine all online platforms; there are multifarious other laws in effect that can provide protections, particularly the First Amendment.
I think you are still failing to understand section 230. 230 does not regulate the relationship between two businesses. It is 100% irrelevant to the relationship between AWS and Parler. It had no effect, and if it's repealed, it would have no future effect on AWS kicking other businesses of their site.
Section 230 limits who can sue Parler for content published on their site. Without 230 Parler (and Free Republic) would be worse off, because they could get sued for anything the users post. The First Amendment isn't a liability shield. The simple question is whether sites like Free Republic and Parler should be liable for 100% of the things said on the platform. If they are, they will be driven out of business. Is Jim Robinson the editor of Free Republic and legally responsible for what you say? That's what repealing section 230 would do.
Section 230 is not and cannot be the be all and end all with respect to (allegedly) protecting platforms from liability with respect to content providers, no matter its merits or deficiencies. And it ought to have applied to Parler since AWS threw them off the web on the basis of claims with respect to content creators.
You aren't understanding what 230 does. It has absolutely nothing to do with what happened between AWS and Parler. 230 is simply about liability protection, nothing to do with business contracts or relationships.
AWS specifically held Parler responsible for content, trratin them as a publisher, no matter how they word their false reasoning. AWS certainly knows that judges won’t apply the section in question as written.
Yes, and that was a personal judgement that AWS made as a business, NOTHING to do with section 230. Judges won't apply section 230 because doesn't relate to what happened. Section 230 applies to third parties suing the company that runs the service where the content is posted. Does that make sense?
Personal judgments are still liable to law; no company is a law unto itself.
Yes, but Section 230 in particular does not apply to this particular judgement.
The way the left twists laws, it could and it couldn’t according to how it suits them.
No. Because section 230 has nothing to do with the situation.
Proof by assertion.
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
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.
Get it now? Section 230 means Free Republic isn't the publisher of my comments, and isn't liable for them. NY Times is the publisher of their articles and can be held liable.
AWS/Parler relationship isn't publisher/content provider and there is nothing in Section 230 that applies to their relationship.
And if it were repealed, which Trump has called for, it does not mean that platforms automatically get treated as publishers either because the First Amendment has not been repealed. And Parler was treated as a publisher per AWS claims in spite of it.
Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy, as is argumentum ad lapidem (ignoring what I’m pointing out).
it does not mean that platforms automatically get treated as publishers
Wrong, that is exactly what it would do. Try rereading the text of Section 230, which I sent you. The first amendment doesn't provide liability protection.
And Parler was treated as a publisher per AWS claims in spite of it.
Wrong, AWS treated Parler as a customer, not a publisher. But who cares, because section 230 doesn't apply to the situation unless AWS sued Parler for content on the site. AWS didn't sue Parler, they just said they didn't want their business.
Proof by assertion only applies to you here. I've provided the text of the Section, you are just making ignorant assertions, that are clearly and plainly in contradiction to the text of Section 230.
The weird thing is, why aren't you asking yourself why Trump wants to get rid of 230? Does he think it is unnecessary, and Twitter and Facebook will be fine because "First Amendment"? No, he wants to get rid of it because by getting rid of Section 230, and their publisher protection, they will get pummeled by lawsuits. It hurts them.
My point is, lawsuits will be an annoyance for Twitter and Facebook. Maybe they will lose a few hundred million dollars. Maybe they'll have to hire a 100 lawyers. But so what? That won't kill them. But how many lawsuits to kill Free Republic, or other small businesses? 1? 2? They cost of repealing 230 is greater than the possible upside.
The AWS claim as to why they abruptly deplatformed Parler is that they wete allowing content that allegedly violated the hosting agreement to stand (without proving same), and that held Parler to be a publisher rather than a platform. One can be both platform and customer. Parler was given no right of recourse.
yes, and? Not one word of what you wrote is wrong, and not one word has anything to do with Section 230.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.