Double check the following statements with respect to the passing of FOSTA/SESTA and the Omnibus bill.
FOSTA/SESTA under the guise of fighting human trafficking, gave them prosecutorial power to hold host-ers responsible for the content they host (having not found a way to do what they wanted, they created this scary little wormhole to give them a way to put pressure on hosters (a'la silk road, escort ads)
"To be a bit more explicit: at no point in any court case regarding Section 230 is there a need to determine whether or not a particular website is a "platform" or a "publisher." What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it.
Really, this is the simplest, most basic understanding of Section 230: it is about placing the liability for content online on whoever created that content, and not on whoever is hosting it. If you understand that one thing, you'll understand most of the most important things about Section 230. "
While I know the context in which you are saying this, they do actually now have that power to hold them responsible if they choose to...for discriminating against conservatives, etc. they wouldn't give a crap, but the law has changed. March 2017. The day after FOSTA/SESTA passed, and BURIED deep within the omnibus spending bill was the followup to FOSTA/SESTA which gave them the ability to enact this power retroactively (basically for things posted in the past). just fyi-and, maybe I'm wrong, and I definitely looked into it in regards to a specific scope when it was getting pushed through congress....but, scary stuff imo and I think it makes your point that they can't hold hosters accountable or responsible for the content if they didn't create it....outdated as an answer. Thanks! Interesting read tho, and see lots of stuff to check out on this site.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by j.s..
Re: My Apologies-I meant March 2018 not 2017 (when it passed)
(untitled comment)
Double check the following statements with respect to the passing of FOSTA/SESTA and the Omnibus bill.
FOSTA/SESTA under the guise of fighting human trafficking, gave them prosecutorial power to hold host-ers responsible for the content they host (having not found a way to do what they wanted, they created this scary little wormhole to give them a way to put pressure on hosters (a'la silk road, escort ads)
"To be a bit more explicit: at no point in any court case regarding Section 230 is there a need to determine whether or not a particular website is a "platform" or a "publisher." What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it.
Really, this is the simplest, most basic understanding of Section 230: it is about placing the liability for content online on whoever created that content, and not on whoever is hosting it. If you understand that one thing, you'll understand most of the most important things about Section 230. "
While I know the context in which you are saying this, they do actually now have that power to hold them responsible if they choose to...for discriminating against conservatives, etc. they wouldn't give a crap, but the law has changed. March 2017. The day after FOSTA/SESTA passed, and BURIED deep within the omnibus spending bill was the followup to FOSTA/SESTA which gave them the ability to enact this power retroactively (basically for things posted in the past). just fyi-and, maybe I'm wrong, and I definitely looked into it in regards to a specific scope when it was getting pushed through congress....but, scary stuff imo and I think it makes your point that they can't hold hosters accountable or responsible for the content if they didn't create it....outdated as an answer. Thanks! Interesting read tho, and see lots of stuff to check out on this site.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by j.s..
Submit a story now.