> By count most of the deplorable material that shows up on platforms is not illegal or tortious.
The court case that inspired S230 was people ranting about a wall street investment firm on a Prodigy message board. Stratton Oakmont sued Prodigy for defamation and won, which was kind of the first big blow to the platform that ultimately sunk Prodigy (a really cool platform at the time, but maybe that's just rose glasses). Later the statements on the message board were pretty much shown to be factual, but the damage was done.
Imagine if dang could be personally liable for the things other people said on this message board. Imagine if Moxie Marlinspike was liable for everything anyone ever sent on Signal. Imagine you had a small blog and didn't check the comments section for a couple of days and got sued for everything you had. Sound like a good future?
The court case that inspired S230 was people ranting about a wall street investment firm on a Prodigy message board. Stratton Oakmont sued Prodigy for defamation and won, which was kind of the first big blow to the platform that ultimately sunk Prodigy (a really cool platform at the time, but maybe that's just rose glasses). Later the statements on the message board were pretty much shown to be factual, but the damage was done.
Imagine if dang could be personally liable for the things other people said on this message board. Imagine if Moxie Marlinspike was liable for everything anyone ever sent on Signal. Imagine you had a small blog and didn't check the comments section for a couple of days and got sued for everything you had. Sound like a good future?