-
fascinating—using a §230 approach to argue facebook's trending news/feed is a service provider and not a publisher nyti.ms/2gemehz
-
…in reply to @nsfmc
§230 generally allows fb/goog/et al. to mod content but mostly use it to avoid taking responsibility for its effects en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#History
-
…in reply to @nsfmc
this bit from Stratton v. Prodigy sounds like a pretty familiar argument nowadays in any case en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co.
-
…in reply to @nsfmc
§230 was intended to *encourage* providers to monitor problematic content but it's mostly used to justify inaction en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_v._Yahoo!,_Inc.#Opinion_of_the_Court
-
…in reply to @nsfmc
i first learned about this *complex* intersection b/w law & networks in a guest lecture by Hal Abelson in 6.033 youtube.com/watch?v=TXgH4G81iH0
- …in reply to @nsfmc
- …in reply to @nsfmc
-
…in reply to @nsfmc
the 1st Amendment does not guarantee a user's right to a row in a private organization's database
nsfmc’s Twitter Archive—№ 4,621


