> The argument that they do not interfere in the kind of content that is shown was a key rationale for exempting them from liability.
It seems like this might be the "correct" point; at least when considering "who" is responsible for content - that the degree to which you (the service provider) picks and chooses content is the degree to which you are responsible for the effects of showing that content.
In an ideal implementation, such a link also correlates with organizational size: FB of today can both afford to be liable for the content shown, and can afford the work to be responsible about it. FB when it started could not.
A better example might be Tinder - When it started, would it be reasonable for Tinder to police its users for asshole behavior? Now that Tinder is established, it is reasonable for them to not?
It seems like this might be the "correct" point; at least when considering "who" is responsible for content - that the degree to which you (the service provider) picks and chooses content is the degree to which you are responsible for the effects of showing that content.
In an ideal implementation, such a link also correlates with organizational size: FB of today can both afford to be liable for the content shown, and can afford the work to be responsible about it. FB when it started could not.
A better example might be Tinder - When it started, would it be reasonable for Tinder to police its users for asshole behavior? Now that Tinder is established, it is reasonable for them to not?