Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Josh Hayley’s bill targeting internet giants.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tall73" data-source="post: 74069240" data-attributes="member: 125574"><p>Based on new information I wanted to clarify that some of the information in my earlier posts is not correct.</p><p></p><p>In the Senate hearings Ted Cruz and others have been asking Google if they are a neutral publisher under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. They indicated they are.</p><p></p><p>Cruz, etc. have indicated that Google is abusing the liability protection given to it, and is not neutral. Whether they are neutral or not doesn't matter in recent court cases, and the actual text of 230 doesn't seem to require it.</p><p></p><p>This blog in particular goes through various cases and shows that courts are basically uniformly siding with social media companies in cases involving removal of content, banning, etc. even if there is an argument the company violated its own user agreement.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/" target="_blank">Technology & Marketing Law Blog</a></p><p></p><p>So it seems the courts are interpreting the good samaritan rights to remove offending content quite broadly. And even if these companies are removing accounts, removing content, etc. they enjoy liability under the provision.</p><p></p><p>Now a bill like Hawley's legislation could change that. But under the current bill it would seem the companies may still remove who they want.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tall73, post: 74069240, member: 125574"] Based on new information I wanted to clarify that some of the information in my earlier posts is not correct. In the Senate hearings Ted Cruz and others have been asking Google if they are a neutral publisher under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. They indicated they are. Cruz, etc. have indicated that Google is abusing the liability protection given to it, and is not neutral. Whether they are neutral or not doesn't matter in recent court cases, and the actual text of 230 doesn't seem to require it. This blog in particular goes through various cases and shows that courts are basically uniformly siding with social media companies in cases involving removal of content, banning, etc. even if there is an argument the company violated its own user agreement. [URL='https://blog.ericgoldman.org/']Technology & Marketing Law Blog[/URL] So it seems the courts are interpreting the good samaritan rights to remove offending content quite broadly. And even if these companies are removing accounts, removing content, etc. they enjoy liability under the provision. Now a bill like Hawley's legislation could change that. But under the current bill it would seem the companies may still remove who they want. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Josh Hayley’s bill targeting internet giants.
Top
Bottom