12.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Apr 7, 2021, 02:32
12.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Apr 7, 2021, 02:32
Apr 7, 2021, 02:32
 
selection7 wrote on Apr 7, 2021, 01:49:
And then others mocking the previous poster and, in so doing, weirdly explaining that (paraphrased) "there's nothing about businesses who don't block content except for, you know, the part where there definitely is" [see below 230(c)(1)].

(snip)

To summarize the relevant parts describing when the business has or doesn't have immunity from lawsuit:
(Limited protection for not blocking content)
230(c)(1) immunity from being equated as the speaker* of information

In the context of this discussion, nothing about 230(c)(1) protection rests on Facebook or Twitter's commitment to not blocking any content. They don't suddenly lose that protection if they choose to block something they deem objectionable. A company that doesn't block content enjoys the same rights as one that does.

And then conveniently failing to point out the subparts that expressly encourage the ability of the end user (not explicitly the business) to control what is blocked [see below, 230(b)(3)&(4)].

Because I felt it wasn't relevant; the protections are what they are, regardless of the intent. But if you want to talk about it, I do think you glossed over 230(b)(2): (It is the policy of the United States) "...to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation". Using the power of the government to force Twitter to do this or not do that seems like it goes directly against this principle.

Not really related:

230(d) no immunity* for failing to notify customers of parental controls
*except that it says this requirement can be met "in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider", which refers to "A provider of interactive computer service"**, which means it requires the business to do something for which it has its own discretion as to what is "appropriate", which makes this subpart of the stature effectively moot. *smh*
I don't read that the same way. The company's discretion applies to how it decides to send the required notification, not the content of that notification. Like, a mailed letter, an email, a pop-up, part of the user agreement, etc. But there's no "or else" here, so I don't know what the consequences are for not doing anything.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Apr 6, 12:50Apr 6 12:50
2.
Apr 6, 13:23Apr 6 13:23
3.
Apr 6, 14:45Apr 6 14:45
4.
Apr 6, 15:20Apr 6 15:20
5.
Apr 6, 17:08Apr 6 17:08
7.
Apr 6, 17:42Apr 6 17:42
11.
Apr 7, 01:49Apr 7 01:49
 12.
Apr 7, 02:32Apr 7 02:32
   Re: Morning Legal Briefs
13.
Apr 7, 03:02Apr 7 03:02
8.
Apr 6, 17:56Apr 6 17:56
9.
Apr 6, 18:20Apr 6 18:20
10.
Apr 6, 18:47Apr 6 18:47
6.
Apr 6, 17:13Apr 6 17:13
14.
Apr 7, 06:55Apr 7 06:55