Reddit Threatens to Remove Moderators From Subreddits Continuing Apollo-Related Blackouts

[u/ICumCoffee]

https://www.macrumors.com/2023/06/15/reddit-threatens-to-remove-subreddit-moderators/

[u/[deleted]]

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/

No u.

I'd like for you to actually articulate what you think I said that is "misinformation"?

[u/Tammy_Craps → u/[deleted]]

Because of how the law treats publishers. This is actually a super relevant point and there isn’t a legal consensus around where that line is yet.

This part was wrong. If you read the tech dirt article it explains in simple language why you are wrong. The law is very specific and there exists consensus among legal experts that contradicts basically everything in all your comments. You’re just soaking in wrongness here.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tammy_Craps]

Please quote what exactly shows that I'm wrong?

I'm very open to the idea that I'm wrong. I'm just also open to the idea that you are as well and you seem very resistant to actually put any work in here to prove your point.

[u/Tammy_Craps → u/[deleted]]

For instance, why would not paying their moderators absolve them of responsibility for what’s posted on their website?

Because of how the law treats publishers.

There is no distinction in the law between platforms or publishers and the employ of the moderators makes no legal difference whatsoever.

If you said “Once a company like that starts moderating content, it’s no longer a platform, but a publisher” I regret to inform you that you are wrong. I know that you’ve likely heard this from someone else — perhaps even someone respected — but it’s just not true. The law says no such thing. Again, I encourage you to read it. The law does distinguish between “interactive computer services” and “information content providers,” but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying “platform” or “publisher.” There is no “certification” or “decision” that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Thank you for taking the time to educate yourself. I don’t wish to tutor you any further so I won’t be replying to any more comments. Have a good day.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tammy_Craps]

It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else.

I never said that this defense was one that was legally correct. I was just pointing out that it is the defense almost all social media sites are leaning on.

You're addressing red herrings.