Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Not quite

Mashable's story on strikes me as a fascinating teaching example. Judge Kozinski thought that would not be entitled to section 230's immunity because of its extensive participation in the creation of unlawful content. How would he deal with this site's aggregation of Twitter feeds from people who indicate they aren't at home? Does it matter that the site claims (and I have no reason to disbelieve) that it's trying to educate people about the vulnerabilities they create with such messages?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Unvarnished doesn't seem to be useful for business because any company that uses it to base hiring decisions on would get a discrimination lawsuit.

As far as mindless entertainment goes, DirtyPhoneBook has some troubling comments but is hilarious as far as personal reputation goes.

It's interesting that Michael Arrington commented about the death of repuation right before unvarnished was released though. I guess some people do have some things to hide.