Hacker News Reader

The DMCA has incentivized everything we see our current corporate-dictated web environment by making none of these businesses liable for any of their actions. The spread of misinformation is a kind of emergent phenomenon.

The democratic nature of physical reality hasn't led to every publication turning into the National Enquirer.

View on HN

In this context you might mean the CDA, which provides a different set of immunities.

Edit: also note that misinformation isn't necessarily defamatory and so even if online intermediaries were liable for content, there wouldn't necessarily be a legal remedy to suppress most "misinformation". For example, there's probably no aggrieved party who can sue to stop a hoax or urban legend about nonexistent persons.

If Facebook or Google were to be held liable for the content on their platforms they would not have the same business model that incentivizes outrageous and inflammatory nonsense. They wouldn't have business models that didn't directly attribute personal ownership over authored works.

This isn't about people being liable for spreading misinformation, this is about a business model that thrives on misinformation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com