Supreme Court removed some protections from big tech:
"The Ninth Circuit relied heavily on the “policy” and “purpose” of §230 to conclude that immunity is unavailable when a plaintiff alleges anticompetitive conduct. I agree with the Court’s decision not to take up this case."
"Extending §230 immunity beyond the natural reading of the text can have serious consequences"
Link:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101320zor_8m58.pdf
Wrong. No law, or interpretation of the law has changed. Thomas is saying that the scope and application of it could/should be looked at, but nothing has actually happened.
I disagree. 47 U.S. Code § 230 says that:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)
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)"
The Supreme Court upheld that this immunity is invalid on a mere assertion of the plantiff that the provider in question is engaging in anticompetitive conduct:
"In its defense, Malwarebytes invoked a provision of §230 that states that a computer service provider cannot be held liable for provid-ing tools “to restrict access to material” that it “considers tobe obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” §230(c)(2). The Ninth Circuit relied heavily on the “policy” and “purpose” of §230
to conclude that immunity is unavailable when a plaintiff alleges anticompetitive conduct.
I agree with the Court’s decision"
Previously, as far as I am aware, the plantiff would have to prove it. Now he doesn't. In his words, this is done to allow " plaintiffs a chance to raise their claims in the first place", and then they would have to prove "the merits of their cases" (it never mention that they must prove their allegation, only the other elements of their case). From my understanding, this stops 47 U.S. Code § 230 from being used as a blanket shield to dismiss all claims against the defendant.
After that, he then yes, talked about the problems with courts application of the law, as well as what should be changed. Still, I think there has been one major change I mentioned, unless I am just reading into it too much, which is a definate possibility.
I dont think this was posted here, but Ajit Pai is moving to "clarify" 47 us code 230.
archived 16 Oct 2020 13:35:20 UTC
archive.is
