Post

I've seen this question come up a few times, and some of it is answered in this post from a few years ago, but let me try to answer @opinionhaver.bsky.social's question directly since he asks this every time 230 comes up. www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/h...

The real issue is you NEED to understand how 230 and the First Amendment intersect. This is a key thing that many people get wrong. The underlying issue is that MOST THINGS that companies would get sued over hosting/promoting/etc are all protected by 1A. Now, that leads some to say...

"Well, then, we really don't need 230 since 1A will protect." But that's wrong, as @ericgoldman.bsky.social neatly lays out in this paper. 230 provides a procedural benefit to get rid of *frivolous* cases *that would lose* but does so much earlier. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

The *practical* difference, especially for smaller entities, is MASSIVE. Basically it will get a case tossed out for ~$100k rather than over $2mil. For a massive multi-billion company (Meta, Google, etc) with buildings full of lawyers, the difference is minimal.

Why wouldn’t these cases increase as the number of users/posts does? The more content the greater your liability exposure. This seems to take as given that both Bluesky and meta will face the same number of these cases, but there’s an order of magnitude more content on one.

They wouldn't face the same number, but the number at which it becomes existential is so different. Bluesky could handle what? One such case? Two? Meta can handle a thousand and not blink. And they wouldn't face a thousand, because most lawyers would know they'd fail.