Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett
Think about this website for a moment... What if there was no moderation here and people who were in the shady side of shit were free to post snuff films or CP. Is it not the forum owner's responsibility to remove that content?
Of course it is, and yes this is a user-generated site and a social network but you wouldn't think twice about them deleting CP & snuff films etc because obviously, they should if it were ever posted.
So why would anyone think that other user-generated social media platforms shouldn't be responsible for moderating their content? Of course, they should be. If you think you can hide from responsibility as a site owner by claiming user uploaded content.. well you will be in for bad surprise one day.
|
Of course it's their responsibility to remove illegal content, section 230 doesn't give you immunity to allow illegal content on your platform. It gives you immunity to keep operating an open platform as long as you can show you actively remove illegal content and ban repeat offenders.
Without section 230 places like facebook, twitter, redit, youtube, gfy.com suddenly assume liability for what the average John Doe is posting, suddenly Karen can now sue GFY.
Another example Trump could sue GFY, YouTube & ATT because John Doe posted a viral video about some stupid shit Trump did on Youtube using his ATT internet and shared it on GFY.
This isn't about porn, porn will be impacted, it can have a huge impact on our ability to "speak freely online". Imagine a debate where each answer have to be manually moderated