Hacker News Reader

Comment by swebs | Hacker News Reader

Good, I hope this forces them to decide whether to be neutral platforms or publishers. They've been having their cake and eating it too for far too long.

View on HN

If that's a reference to the protections under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, it doesn't work that way. The whole point of section 230 was to say that being non-neutral does not subject a platform to liability for content supplied to that platform by users.

I'm not sure why, but a lot of people seem to think it is the opposite: you have to be neutral to be protected. There was a court case that ruled that way before section 230. Congress wrote 230 specifically to reverse that.

"The Trump administration’s proposal seeks to significantly narrow the protections afforded to companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under the current law, internet companies are not liable for most of the content that their users or other third parties post on their platforms. Tech platforms also qualify for broad legal immunity when they take down objectionable content, at least when they are acting “in good faith.”

I hope they take Trump head-on, and declare an affirmative right to freedom of the press that does not violate safe-harbor policy.

Why? Thats the whole problem.

The problem is that sites (that users can choose to use or refrain from using) have a right to freedom of the press and protection against libel / slander lawsuits for also re-hosting information that third parties post through them?

I don't think that's a problem. Sounds like working-as-intended.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com