,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
2d Cir, 2-1, holds that CDA § 230 bars a lawsuit against Facebook by victims of Hamas terrorism.
The victims (or their representatives) had argued Facebook assisted Hamas by allowing Hamas to post content encouraging and celebrating the attacks. ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isys…
The victims (or their representatives) had argued Facebook assisted Hamas by allowing Hamas to post content encouraging and celebrating the attacks. ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isys…
The maj. op. explains that the lawsuit cannot proceed because the suit is trying to treat Facebook (an interactive computer service) as the publisher of information provided by Hamas.
That is forbidden by CDA § 230.
That is forbidden by CDA § 230.
The decision is unfortunately drafted, though. The dispute between the maj. op. and the dissent is over whether allowing the lawsuit to proceed would treat Facebook as a "publisher" of Hamas' content.
But it leads to inelegantly framed discussion like this:
But it leads to inelegantly framed discussion like this:
And that careless framing of the discussion leads dissenting Judge Katzmann to lead off with this bafflingly bad analogy:
Anyway, the bottom line in this CDA § 230 case is that the maj. op. thinks that Facebook's matchmaking algorithms are akin to a publisher's traditional editorial function.
Dissenting Judge Katzmann argues that the algos, like advertising, is not. The nut of the dissent here:
Dissenting Judge Katzmann argues that the algos, like advertising, is not. The nut of the dissent here:
