No. The only thing they don’t have that immunity for is the employee statements made on behalf of the company, etc. The whole publisher/platform distinction based on content moderation is just pulled out of someone’s ass.
If by ‘someone’s ass’ you mean ‘the ninth circuit court of appeals’ ass’ then perhaps, as it was the basic principle of the Roommates.com case finding. It’s perhaps unfortunate that the ninth circuit covers California juristiction, or reddit could just ignore it.
The Roommates.com case was about a questionnaire they had that was in violation of fair housing laws. They weren’t immune there under 230 because that was something the company itself put out. From what I understand it wasn’t just them taking moderation action or management of user-generated content.
No. The only thing they don’t have that immunity for is the employee statements made on behalf of the company, etc. The whole publisher/platform distinction based on content moderation is just pulled out of someone’s ass.
If by ‘someone’s ass’ you mean ‘the ninth circuit court of appeals’ ass’ then perhaps, as it was the basic principle of the Roommates.com case finding. It’s perhaps unfortunate that the ninth circuit covers California juristiction, or reddit could just ignore it.
The Roommates.com case was about a questionnaire they had that was in violation of fair housing laws. They weren’t immune there under 230 because that was something the company itself put out. From what I understand it wasn’t just them taking moderation action or management of user-generated content.