Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nanocyto t1_j9pjukr wrote

Reply to comment by override367 in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123

I'm suggesting that book stores can be held liable for what books they put out. I can think of all sorts of material you wouldn't want them to curate like a section dedicated to people trying to figure out how to start trafficking

1

override367 t1_j9pxu61 wrote

They... literally can't unless a complaint is filed, like holy shit this is the core of the case law around section 230

They can't knowingly put out material that is illegal or would get them in trouble, but they bear no liability if they don't know, until such time as they are made aware of it

The reason 230 was created was that this standard only applied to websites that exercised no moderation. IE: if the algorithm was literally a random number generator and you had an equal chance of it recommending you acooking video or actual child pornography, Youtube would be 100% in the clear without 230 as long as they removed the latter after being notified. 230 was necessary because Prodigy, like Youtube, had moderation and content filtering, and any moderation at all meant that they were tacitly endorsing something that was on their service, therefore, they were liable

This is the entire reason the liability shield was created. Section 230 means websites bear no liability in essentially any circumstance other than willful negligence as long as they didn't upload the content, SCOTUS is only considering this case because they aren't judges, they are mad wizards and this is calvinball, not law

1