Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
CDA230 protects websites that have user-generated content, such as complaint and review sites. These websites have no responsibility to check whether the content posted on their site is true or accurate. As long as a website does not change, add to, or alter the content of the user-generated content on their site, they don’t have to remove false or damaging content. The users who post false reports and complaints regularly use false names and throwaway email accounts. The result is that no one can be held responsible for these malicious attacks on brands. Until the law advances to hold such websites accountable for posting false and/or slanderous reports, the only course of action left for most users is to create positive information in the hopes of moving the fake reports out of the top results.
CDA 230 has come under fierce debate with many including the legal profession passionately defending it. The vibrancy of the web and the freedom to exchange information wihtout fear of being sued has certainly changed the way we communicate in the world today. However, it is the abuse of CDA 230 that will almost certainly lead to its demise. It is one of these laws which was meant to do good but had very negative unintended consequences. Elixir Interactive had many positive experiences with responsible site owners while dealing with this attack. There is no penalty or loss of immunity to a site owner if they chose to take content down given sufficent evidence that is has been created to cause malicious harm and many sites do. The now infamous rip off report was notorious in defending its CDA immunity and in one case would not remove the content even when court ordered to do so. Until CDA 230 is revised or scrapped which given the very harmful effects of some the sites abusing it we are stuck with a bad law that was meant to do good.
More CDA 230 resources:
The Volokh Conspiracy – Fixing the 230 subsidy while preverving online anonymity
Study of CDA 230 immunity -Peter Black
How CDA 230 violates the 14th amendment
Thank you for explaining CDA230. I wondered whether complaint and review sites have to legally remove false content from their sites. That explains Pissconsumer.
Comment by Averill — September 23, 2011 @ 8:17 pm