Investment Chat Board Lawsuits Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: sense who wrote (12282)	12/4/2019 2:56:01 PM
From: SI Dave	Read Replies (1) of 12465

So... the CDA 230 protections... were used to shield Backpage... and in fact for some time they were used to successfully shield Backpages.com... even though they weren't in fact acting as that "transparent conduit" that the law intends and requires in order to extend the benefit of its protections ? And there's that Casa Blanca moment... when you are shocked, shocked... to learn that the Backpage.com guys were LYING ? Gasp. Yeah... that whole assumption of good faith thing... doesn't really work ? That's assuming facts not in evidence then or now. The charges or theories alleging liability of the numerous failed lawsuits against Backpage were barred by the CDA for a simple reason; their role in those matters was immunized. The charges that brought down Backpage were for engaging in an entirely different role, e.g., being the originator or developer of the actionable content. There was actual evidence of that role, versus mere conclusory allegations. Apples and oranges. So, what changed was their conduct, not the courts' interpretation of the CDA.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next