Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Meta - Forums About Forums
Meta
Three Cheers For Content Moderation!!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8877167" data-attributes="member: 7023840"><p>L]</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's not quite it . A (very) brief explainer of Section 230 of the CDA (what you are referring to).</p><p></p><p>In essence, this section was crafted as a response to a court case (Stratton), which held that Prodigy (think of it as a ... forum, like this one) could be held liable for moderating its message boards.</p><p></p><p>This is a weird distinction, but traditionally <em>publishers</em> are held to be liable for defamatory statements- not just the makers of the statements. In book publishing, for example, the author isn't the only one liable for the defamatory statement- the publisher of the book is, as well. The Stratton case held that, by engaging in moderation (by removing offensive posts) Prodigy was acting like a publisher. Weirdly, if Prodigy had engaged in no moderation at all, then they would not be liable.</p><p></p><p>And that's the distinction of Section 230. It's the opposite of the "Town Square."* Section 230 was a rebuke to the idea that internet platform must be foreclosed from the possibility of moderation; instead, it allowed "providers of an interactive computer service" (websites, etc.) to moderate their content without fear of becoming liable as a publisher- the goal was to allow the platforms to develop their own, innovative methods of policing content as needed (while competition would allow the continued unfettered free speech).</p><p></p><p>For the most part, it appears to have been successful. In my time, I would say that speech is more robust than it was before- there is a greater diversity of opinions. Different platforms have different moderation policies- but very few have none at all (signal to noise issues and illegal content tends to shut those down quickly). In the end, it's always the same.</p><p></p><p>People seek out the platforms that they like, and then complain about the moderation that makes the platforms that they like successful. Plus ca change.</p><p></p><p></p><p>*In fairness, it creates a Town Square in aggregate. The mistake people always make is demanding that every single forum operate as their personal Town Square.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8877167, member: 7023840"] L] That's not quite it . A (very) brief explainer of Section 230 of the CDA (what you are referring to). In essence, this section was crafted as a response to a court case (Stratton), which held that Prodigy (think of it as a ... forum, like this one) could be held liable for moderating its message boards. This is a weird distinction, but traditionally [I]publishers[/I] are held to be liable for defamatory statements- not just the makers of the statements. In book publishing, for example, the author isn't the only one liable for the defamatory statement- the publisher of the book is, as well. The Stratton case held that, by engaging in moderation (by removing offensive posts) Prodigy was acting like a publisher. Weirdly, if Prodigy had engaged in no moderation at all, then they would not be liable. And that's the distinction of Section 230. It's the opposite of the "Town Square."* Section 230 was a rebuke to the idea that internet platform must be foreclosed from the possibility of moderation; instead, it allowed "providers of an interactive computer service" (websites, etc.) to moderate their content without fear of becoming liable as a publisher- the goal was to allow the platforms to develop their own, innovative methods of policing content as needed (while competition would allow the continued unfettered free speech). For the most part, it appears to have been successful. In my time, I would say that speech is more robust than it was before- there is a greater diversity of opinions. Different platforms have different moderation policies- but very few have none at all (signal to noise issues and illegal content tends to shut those down quickly). In the end, it's always the same. People seek out the platforms that they like, and then complain about the moderation that makes the platforms that they like successful. Plus ca change. *In fairness, it creates a Town Square in aggregate. The mistake people always make is demanding that every single forum operate as their personal Town Square. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Meta - Forums About Forums
Meta
Three Cheers For Content Moderation!!!
Top