On Sat, Mar 14, 2026 at 9:46 AM Jan Claeys <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2026-03-11 at 17:16 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be > > treated as the publisher or speaker of any information > > provided by another information content provider. > > > > That lets companies like Meta and Google off the hook for what their > > users say and do. > > It does not leave them off the hook for what they do themselves though > (like the hyper-addictive algorithms, privacy-violations, etc.). > > And they already block many ridiculous things anyway; e.g. I just saw > someone who had to pixelate her 5yo boy’s nipples on a beach photo from > last summer because otherwise Instagram blocked it.
Section 230 provides broad immunity for companies like Meta and Facebook. It is completely opposite of the way things work in the real world, where publishers are responsible for the material they publish and distribute. See for example, <https://www.google.com/search?q=Section+230+defies+normal+legal+liability>. What you are seeing from Instagram and the 5 yo picture is the "Good Samaritan" protections of Section 230. Jeff
