Categories
Post

CDA 230 and Neutral Platforms

Many instances of different social media platforms excusing vulgar content shared within the realm of global users has been happening for a while. The legislation responsible for this being able to happen is within Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, This act protects websites and companies from being sued for media content that goes against its official user guidelines. However because there are so much more heinous acts on social media than there are moderators that are hired by companies to stop these instances it makes the solution unclear. This act is essential for the networks that we all know and use to be able to continue functioning without being claimed liable for any infractions that happen within their platforms. One side argues the foundation of this law enables companies to ignore reported instances that do put users in danger as described by critics on The Verge’s article on the Communications Decency Act. Examples of a large company ignoring reported infractions and violations of a users rights could go on forever. However one in particular I am going to surround my discussion about is the Anthony Vs. Yahoo case in 2006. A user of an online dating service was filing a lawsuit with the company because he was bombarded with fake accounts and other “defunct profiles” that basically just made the user have to keep resubscribing more and more. This specific case section 230 did not apply and the case was won by Mr. Anthony. This is not always the case however most of the time CDA 230 does apply because the corporate lawyers these companies hire are so good. In T. Gilespes chapter called the Myth of a neutral platform is because she states when talking about the monitoring of users on various platforms as being financially undesriable and unbearable. Thus meaning it is seemingly impossible to distribute enough user moderators into these websites and companies to bring justice to each of the continually issues of rule infractions especially that fall into legal categories. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/19/what-is-section-230-and-why-do-some-people-want-to-change-it.html

“Anthony v. Yahoo! Inc., 421 F.Supp.2d 1257 (N.D.Cal. 2006).” Electronic Frontier Foundation, 9 Nov. 2012, http://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/anthony-v-yahoo-inc.

Cope, Sophia, et al. “Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, http://www.eff.org/issues/cda230.

Newton, Casey. “Everything You Need to Know about Section 230.” The Verge, The Verge, 3 Mar. 2020, http://www.theverge.com/2020/3/3/21144678/section-230-explained-internet-speech-law-definition-guide-free-moderation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s