So, how does this apply to Spez’s new claim of full control of Reddit data for scraping purposes. I know that Reddit’s content is S 230 because they only have to make a best faith effort to handle illegal content that was reported, and they largely delegate that responsibility to unpaid user volunteers who operate in a largely unregulated environment.
If claiming S 230 means giving up ownership of data claims, then the new Reddit policy won’t stand up in court and meat’s back on the menu.
I know that Reddit’s content is S 230 because they only have to make a best faith effort to handle illegal content that was reported, and they largely delegate that responsibility to unpaid user volunteers who operate in a largely unregulated environment.
Not sure if this is just badly worded but this is… backwards. They are allowed to do “good faith” moderation because they are protected by S 230. Otherwise it could be seen as an act of “editing” which would mean they are responsible for the content. They don’t have to do any sort of moderation at all.
If they want to sell ads in the EU yes they do have to moderate. They also have to be transparent about how they moderate (incidentally, lemm.ee just instituted a rule for mods saying that they need to provide clear and accurate reasons for their actions)
(incidentally, lemm.ee just instituted a rule for mods saying that they need to provide clear and accurate reasons for their actions)
That should not have to be a rule. Lemmy asks you for a reason when you delete a post or ban someone and you can’t do it unless you type in that reason.
So lemm.ee must have some shitty mods who are typing in XXXX for the reason or something.
Dunno about lemm.ee mods never got into trouble there (we hardly have any communities in the first place TBH), but lemmy.ml mods could certainly use that kind of rule. No, “Rule #1” is not a clear and accurate reason when that rule is a nebulous “be nice” or something.
Yeah, that is a shitty way to moderate. I always try to make it clear what the violation is, especially if I need to point to a specific rule. For example, I had to remove a post from World News this morning because rule 1 says no U.S. internal news. So when I removed it, I put something like ‘Rule 1: No U.S. internal news’ as the reason. If nothing else, it cuts down on PM arguments someone might start. It even occasionally leads to a polite discussion where I’ve reversed the decision.
So, how does this apply to Spez’s new claim of full control of Reddit data for scraping purposes. I know that Reddit’s content is S 230 because they only have to make a best faith effort to handle illegal content that was reported, and they largely delegate that responsibility to unpaid user volunteers who operate in a largely unregulated environment.
If claiming S 230 means giving up ownership of data claims, then the new Reddit policy won’t stand up in court and meat’s back on the menu.
Not sure if this is just badly worded but this is… backwards. They are allowed to do “good faith” moderation because they are protected by S 230. Otherwise it could be seen as an act of “editing” which would mean they are responsible for the content. They don’t have to do any sort of moderation at all.
If they want to sell ads in the EU yes they do have to moderate. They also have to be transparent about how they moderate (incidentally, lemm.ee just instituted a rule for mods saying that they need to provide clear and accurate reasons for their actions)
Neat. That has nothing to do with S 230 in the US.
That should not have to be a rule. Lemmy asks you for a reason when you delete a post or ban someone and you can’t do it unless you type in that reason.
So lemm.ee must have some shitty mods who are typing in XXXX for the reason or something.
Dunno about lemm.ee mods never got into trouble there (we hardly have any communities in the first place TBH), but lemmy.ml mods could certainly use that kind of rule. No, “Rule #1” is not a clear and accurate reason when that rule is a nebulous “be nice” or something.
Yeah, that is a shitty way to moderate. I always try to make it clear what the violation is, especially if I need to point to a specific rule. For example, I had to remove a post from World News this morning because rule 1 says no U.S. internal news. So when I removed it, I put something like ‘Rule 1: No U.S. internal news’ as the reason. If nothing else, it cuts down on PM arguments someone might start. It even occasionally leads to a polite discussion where I’ve reversed the decision.
Just stumbled across this: lemm.ee’s rule change was prompted by a particular incident. The reasoning is that modlogs are public so misstating reasons can be right-out libel.