Is There Language in Section 230 That Could Enable Adversarial Interoperability?(techdirt.com)
techdirt.com
Is There Language in Section 230 That Could Enable Adversarial Interoperability?
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/02/was-there-a-trojan-horse-hidden-in-section-230-all-along-that-could-enable-adversarial-interoperability/
7 comments
I do not see a quote/citation of the law he is discussing.
>But then there’s (c)(2)(B), which says:
>> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)
It's right there on the page,
>> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)
It's right there on the page,
Sure, right there on the page after dozens of paragraphs of breathless rage-baity hyperbole, after which most readers probably bailed out.
But, this law also doesn't do what the rage-bait thesis suggests it might do, namely "making the open web a lot more open".
Instead, it provides immunity for people who make middle-ware boxes to censor content. You have to remember that this legislation was written during the moral panic about pornography on the web in the 1990's. Look at what the law plainly says: <people> shall not be liable for <creating technical means> to restrict access to <stuff>.
Censoring FB's news feed for FB users while they are logged into and browsing FB, as Zuckerman ostensibly wants to do, probably falls within the scope of this law. But, creating tools which make FB content available outside of FB (which is the thesis of the TC article) is the opposite of what this paragraph is intended to do, and is unlikely to succeed.
But, this law also doesn't do what the rage-bait thesis suggests it might do, namely "making the open web a lot more open".
Instead, it provides immunity for people who make middle-ware boxes to censor content. You have to remember that this legislation was written during the moral panic about pornography on the web in the 1990's. Look at what the law plainly says: <people> shall not be liable for <creating technical means> to restrict access to <stuff>.
Censoring FB's news feed for FB users while they are logged into and browsing FB, as Zuckerman ostensibly wants to do, probably falls within the scope of this law. But, creating tools which make FB content available outside of FB (which is the thesis of the TC article) is the opposite of what this paragraph is intended to do, and is unlikely to succeed.
A big question I have is this: If a user cannot choose their content, is the provider an "interactive computer service"?
Because if the provider is not an interactive computer service, they have no Section 230 protection.
Because if the provider is not an interactive computer service, they have no Section 230 protection.
Thank You.
I missed that.
I missed that.