Facebook isn't liable as a publisher because they've been granted specific legal protections under the law. Rather than moderate Facebook, it would be easier to tweak that legal immunity so that it covers specifically the obscenity (i.e. pornography) it was crafted to prevent. If Facebook does want to curate content, they should be liable for the end product.

The intent behind section 230 was to promote open forums of online debate, while simultaneously giving those forums the ability to moderate obscenity. In an age where obscenity has come to mean unpopular political beliefs, the stated purpose of the law is under attack.

I’m sure you’re familiar with it already but here’s the relevant text for anyone who isn’t.

So what is your view? That they be held liable for anything posted by their users, even if they make attempts to remove it? Or that they not be allowed to moderate content on their own platform?

This post was edited by Doggyfood on Aug 25 2021 08:52pm

No they haven't lol. They've been granted general legal protections afforded to everybody under the law. Facebook is not curating content by moderating. If you think they should be held legally responsible for content because they moderate then you will literally destroy the ability to moderate content. It's that simple.

The intent of 230 was to allow moderation. It was in response to a legal case where a website that hosted content created a duty of knowing by having a moderation team, and could be held liable, and another website that didn't moderate at all couldn't be held liable because they didn't moderate and therefore had no reason to know what was being posted. You are proposing a total reversal of the intent of the law because you don't know shit about the subject.

Wrong. Do you ever fly? Right after take off, try standing and announcing you have a bomb. Let's see what happens.

I'm not hurting anybody if I just say that. Words dont hurt anybody you filthy communist!

Try to keep up, poindexter.

1427. IMPARTING OR CONVEYING FALSE INFORMATION (BOMB HOAX) -- 18 U.S.C. 35
Section 35 of Title 18 provides civil and criminal felony provisions for the conveyance of false information regarding attempts or alleged attempts to destroy, damage, or disable aircraft, aircraft related facilities or motor vehicles and their related facilities. The statute is frequently referred to as the "bomb hoax" statute. The statute contains a civil penalty provision, 18 U.S.C. § 35(a), for nonmalicious false reports, and a felony provision, 18 U.S.C. § 35(b), which prescribes maximum penalties of $5,000 or five years imprisonment or both for conveying or imparting false information willfully and maliciously or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life. Statements which impart or convey false information regarding attempts to place or the placing of explosives aboard aircraft (but not in aircraft facilities such as airports) may also be punishable under 49 U.S.C. 46507(1) (formerly 49 U.S.C.App. § 1472(m)(1)), which provides for a felony penalty, and under 49 U.S.C. 46302 (formerly 49 U.S.C.App. § 1472(c)), which provides for a civil penalty for furnishing false information about alleged attempts to commit certain Title 49 offenses.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1427-imparting-or-conveying-false-information-bomb-hoax-18-usc-35

Hope this helps. Remember kids, stupidity is not a defense.

You're citing communist laws to take away my freedom. You should be arrested for treason.

I wasn't implying that Facebook was mentioned by name in Section 230, but internet service providers are.

The intent of 230 was to allow moderation for the purposes of giving users control over pornographic, illegal, and otherwise obscene material. See...



https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

And in order to accomplish those aims, they were given the following.



If we aren't happy with how service providers are using the extraordinary discretion handed to them, we are well within our rights to tweak those protections. For my part, I would much rather have Twitter restrict itself to removing illegal and/or pornographic content and allow everything else.

The logical conclusion of what you just said is that I could take njaguar to court for warning me for posting raptor jesus in the Christian subforum.