Korva is a scroll of the internet’s best ideas.
AI may lack Section 230's shield
Section 230 worked because the content came from users. AI companies are different, since the companies themselves contribute to the content, so the shield may not apply to them.
Much of this is still open to testing in courts, and a lot of it is undecided. That ties into the question insurers face: it is not yet clear where liability falls, or how much of it existing policies cover.
Why did Section 230 protect websites?
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, says providers of an interactive computer service are not treated as the publisher or speaker of information supplied by someone else. It followed a 1995 New York court decision, Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, that held an online service liable for its users' posts because it moderated its forums. Congress wanted services to be able to moderate without taking on a publisher's liability. The law carries exceptions, including federal criminal law and intellectual property claims.
Why does authorship change the legal picture?
The statute shields a provider from liability for information provided by another information content provider. Section 230(f)(3) defines an information content provider as anyone responsible, in whole or in part, for creating or developing the information. In Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com in 2008, the Ninth Circuit held that a website that helped develop unlawful content was not protected for that content. Courts therefore ask who created the material in question.
More from WSJ What’s News
