Companies could use system processes that automatically. Detect and remove content that has been legally identifi as defamatory. Rather than forcing victims Services Price to iteratively report each specific. Url where it appears. (this is exactly one of the solutions. I recommend four years ago in a european case against google where a victim’s lawyers. Kept having to repeatedly go back to google asking for more thousands. Of ur ls of pages where false and defamatory content. Was post.)internet publishers and Services Price distributors must. Accountable google, microsoft, facebook, yelp and other companies complain about the cost of
Being force to help victims in such cases to eliminate defamation. Google largely helps voluntarily (albeit with its strong demand for accurate ur ls i described earlier that stubbornly refuses to handle redirected ur ls, pagination, etc.), even though they don’t have to. do it. so they are already Services Price absorbing those costs. Other companies operating in europe absorb these costs under the right to be forgotten laws there. And these companies already handle many types of procedurally similar takedown notices for copyrighted content. Services Price I even previously posted an idea on how these companies could collaborate for a
Content Removal Services Price Clearinghouse to Significantly
Save on the common costs of processing removal requests. Lately these companies don’t openly mention cost as an argument for keeping their section 230 protections, presumably because it would seem utterly cruelly mercenary compared to the human suffering that has been endured because of these issues. . but make no mistake, the creation of section 230 and the resistance to changing it since then is all about the money Services Price . Some of the companies covered by section 230 have deliberately designed themselves to perpetuate the harm. Court orders for defamation often order the defamer to help their victim by removing bad things they have posted. Services Price When it comes to websites, blogs, and some social media, badguys can be force to take things down, and big business platforms don’t need to get involv.
However, Companies that Services Price Block Authors from Simultaneously
Deleting content say they shouldn’t be responsible for it, while allowing content authors to edit or redact things when ask to do so. these companies should either be require to stop court-order defamation or allow the perpetrators to do so themselves. No problem. Services Price Now there are a number of legal commentators, such as eugene volokh and eric goldman, who have essentially built a gallery of peanut answers over time in defense of section 230, largely centered on arguments from fairly revolving academic case law touting Services Price section 230. immunity and corporate rights to free speech. None of these experts ever seem to also consider the human cost of not removing false defamatory content – or the fact tha