As of right now, not much. There's very specific carveouts for things like child pornography and sex trafficking (i.e., what caused the recent crackdown on Pornhub), but for the last year all the talk has been about curtailing protection under Section 230 -- which is what currently prevents most lawsuits against web hosts. Ironically, Senator Hawley was one of the most recent politicians to propose cuts to Section 230's protection.
Additionally, there has been an increase in successful challenges to Section 230 in some lower courts. See, e.g., M.L. v. Craigslist, No. C19-6153, *5-9 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 11, 2020) (finding, in part, plaintiff's claims that Craigslist is responsible for developing offending content because the advertisements were developed (a) in conjunction with Craigslist's rules, (b) advertisers paid Craigslist a fee, (c) Craigslist enabled anonymous communication, and (d) Craigslist hosted an "erotic services" section sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss pursuant to Section 230).
If I had to guess, the in-house counsel at these companies has seen the writing on the wall and is trying to safeguard against future lawsuits, should Section 230 protection be degraded -- which is what seems to be happening.
As of right now, not much. There's very specific carveouts for things like child pornography and sex trafficking (i.e., what caused the recent crackdown on Pornhub), but for the last year all the talk has been about curtailing protection under Section 230 -- which is what currently prevents most lawsuits against web hosts. Ironically, Senator Hawley was one of the most recent politicians to propose cuts to Section 230's protection.
Additionally, there has been an increase in successful challenges to Section 230 in some lower courts. See, e.g., M.L. v. Craigslist, No. C19-6153, *5-9 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 11, 2020) (finding, in part, plaintiff's claims that Craigslist is responsible for developing offending content because the advertisements were developed (a) in conjunction with Craigslist's rules, (b) advertisers paid Craigslist a fee, (c) Craigslist enabled anonymous communication, and (d) Craigslist hosted an "erotic services" section sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss pursuant to Section 230).
If I had to guess, the in-house counsel at these companies has seen the writing on the wall and is trying to safeguard against future lawsuits, should Section 230 protection be degraded -- which is what seems to be happening.
right on, thanks for the information