I'm inexplicably getting a lot of DMs, emails, phone calls, telegrams, carrier pigeons about 230 this morning. So I thought that today's 230 thread could address a high-level question: what does Section 230 do? There's quite a bit of confusion on this.

The tl;dr version is: Section 230 allows the person who posted illegal/defamatory content to be sued, but it generally prohibits a successful lawsuit against the platform where the person posted that content.

230 still applies if platforms moderate content, and protects their liability both from keeping content up and taking content down. But platforms do not receive 230 protections for content that they created.

Now we get into the weeds:

Subsection (c)(1) contains the "26 words" that are the most important part of the statute and provide the core protections.

Let's break that down. First, what is a "provider or user of an interactive computer service?" Fortunately, the statute defines "interactive computer service.

This is very broad, and includes not only ISPs, but also websites, apps, and what we now think of as "platforms." These range from the largest social media sites to the smallest hyperlocal news blogs that allow user comments.

Second, what does it mean to be "treat[ed] as the publisher or speaker?" This means that 230 applies to any lawsuit that would hold a platform liable for content provided by third parties.

A classic (and oft-litigated) example is defamation. But 230 has applied to a lot of other types of claims, including negligence, privacy invasion, housing laws, unfair business practices, interference with business expectancy, intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In some cases, courts have held that 230 will not apply if the claim does not treat the platform as publisher, such as promissory estoppel and failure to warn. Courts have varied a bit in their interpretations of what it means to "treat" a platform as a publisher.

The 26 words of (c)(1) are so powerful partly because of another provision in 230, which prohibits liability under state laws that are "inconsistent" with 230.

The immunity only applies to claims arising from "any information provided by another information content provider." This is how the statute defines "information content provider."

So a classic example is that I go to my favorite local news site, @ARLnowDOTcom, and post a terrible, defamatory rumor about my neighbor (I promise, neighbors, I do not and would not do that - this is just a hypo). Neighbor can sue me, but a suit against ArlNow would fail,

because ArlNow was not responsible in whole or in part for creating or developing my defamatory post. Now let's say that the neighbor complained to ArlNow, and ArlNow's editor decided to leave the post up, for whatever reason. 230 still would protect ArlNow.

Let's say that I posted 20 defamatory comments about my neighbor (really, I wouldn't!), neighbor complained, and ArlNow deleted 15 of them but left 5 up, Neighbor still couldn't succeed in lawsuit against ArlNow for remaining 5 posts.

Likewise, I couldn't sue ArlNow for taking down my posts, both because of Section (c)(1), and the other core provision of 230, (c)(2)

(As a side note, due to the First Amendment and other protections, it's highly unlikely if not impossible for me to succeed in a lawsuit against ArlNow for deleting my comments, even in a 230-free world, though the litigation would be far more extensive).

Let's say that my neighbor angered the ArlNow editor, who then posted a defamatory comment about my neighbor under the comments that I posted. The neighbor *could* sue ArlNow for the comment the editor posted without a 230 problem, as ArlNow is now the ICP.

But even in that case, 230 still would bar liability of ArlNow for claims arising from *my* comments.

Section 230 also has some significant exceptions. Despite what a lot of media reports suggest, it does not and has never covered intellectual property claims such as copyright (that is the DMCA, a completely different law.

Section 230 also has never covered federal criminal law. This is how, in 2018, the FBI was able to seize Backpage after an investigation into sex trafficking allegations.

A few days later, the latest exception to 230 was signed into law, specifically creating more carve-outs related to sex trafficking (even though this carve-out wasn't needed to seize Backpage).

So that is 230 in a nutshell. It's a short but very important law, and it's sadly been quite misinterpreted over the past few years. I'll continue to post these threads until everyone understands it.