not sure how I feel about this. the article itself didn't say much/wasn't very convincing. section 230 is vital imo as without it, i'm not sure we'd see youtube, reddit, or even messageboards, or...
not sure how I feel about this. the article itself didn't say much/wasn't very convincing. section 230 is vital imo as without it, i'm not sure we'd see youtube, reddit, or even messageboards, or at least not without an oppressive content-filtering bot
I don't think anyone disagrees that s230 is vital, but rather how broadly should it apply. We don't have to have a black and white idea of platforms holding either no responsibility or absolute...
I don't think anyone disagrees that s230 is vital, but rather how broadly should it apply.
We don't have to have a black and white idea of platforms holding either no responsibility or absolute responsibility. For one thing platforms are already held legally accountable if they do not respond to DMCA requests but we don't have to accept that as the only line drawn.
The linked column doesn't provide any examples but there are some floating around the discourse right now such as disinformation in political advertising and stochastic terrorism.
Yep. It is the moral responsibility, although not legal responsibility, to curate healthy communities by site owners. Whether or not this is a good thing, I used to be torn on. But, am not of the...
Yep. It is the moral responsibility, although not legal responsibility, to curate healthy communities by site owners.
Whether or not this is a good thing, I used to be torn on. But, am not of the mindset that somehow, in some manner, this should also become a legal responsibility. Damned be the "costs" to do it. We need to start considering things other than money when we build shit.
I believe that users should be held legally responsible for the content they post online, however, I am vehemently against the idea that platforms be held legally responsible for the content their...
I believe that users should be held legally responsible for the content they post online, however, I am vehemently against the idea that platforms be held legally responsible for the content their users post more so than they already are, unless we include provisions to allow for platforms with less capital to be exempt.
not sure how I feel about this. the article itself didn't say much/wasn't very convincing. section 230 is vital imo as without it, i'm not sure we'd see youtube, reddit, or even messageboards, or at least not without an oppressive content-filtering bot
I don't think anyone disagrees that s230 is vital, but rather how broadly should it apply.
We don't have to have a black and white idea of platforms holding either no responsibility or absolute responsibility. For one thing platforms are already held legally accountable if they do not respond to DMCA requests but we don't have to accept that as the only line drawn.
The linked column doesn't provide any examples but there are some floating around the discourse right now such as disinformation in political advertising and stochastic terrorism.
Yep. It is the moral responsibility, although not legal responsibility, to curate healthy communities by site owners.
Whether or not this is a good thing, I used to be torn on. But, am not of the mindset that somehow, in some manner, this should also become a legal responsibility. Damned be the "costs" to do it. We need to start considering things other than money when we build shit.
I believe that users should be held legally responsible for the content they post online, however, I am vehemently against the idea that platforms be held legally responsible for the content their users post more so than they already are, unless we include provisions to allow for platforms with less capital to be exempt.