Technology

60021 readers

4304 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

131

Fifth Circuit: Salesforce Can’t Use Section 230 To Get Out Of Sex Trafficking Case, Because It Only Provided CRM Software, Not Content Moderation (www.techdirt.com)

submitted 1 day ago by some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org to c/technology@lemmy.world

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As many folks here now recognize, the story about Backpage was grossly misleading. While the narrative pushed by politicians and the media was that the company was engaged in sex trafficking, the DOJ had actually commended the company for being a strong partner in the fight against sex trafficking. Indeed, the eventual takedown of Backpage days before FOSTA went into effect (which we were told was necessary to shut down Backpage) has been shown to make life more difficult for law enforcement trying to stop sex trafficking.

But I thought politicians told us the truth? /s

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That seems insane to me. It's like trying to hold Microsoft liable for providing the operating systems and Outlook. Or Adobe because some of the ads no doubt use Photoshop.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 19 hours ago

5th circuit gonna 5th circuit

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Mike Masnick is usually right about most things, but in this case section 230 is just the wrong defense to use. That really is meant for hosting providers, not software providers. Doesn't mean they will be held liable, or should be, but it has nothing to do with section 230 as I understand it.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 8 points 18 hours ago

I mean, Salesforce is SaaS. They have to log in to Salesforce accounts on Salesforce servers to do the CRM angle, so if the crimes allegedly happened in the SF Cloud, then they would be the provider in that case.

Still nutty to go after them. They don't monitor what each and every client uses SF for.

[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The flaw with Backpage was that they engaged in moderation of sex workers posts.

If they hadn't done that it might be a different story but they directly specifically edited posts to increase engagement

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 10 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Backpage moderated some posts, sure. But what was the role of Salesforce here besides supplying a software package?

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

when I ran my own business I had a support deal with my main software vendor. Maybe something like that is being held against them?

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

No way, that would make software providers liable for users missing their software. It'd be like MS being on the hook for terrorism if the Taliban used Windows on a laptop to manage their stuff.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

expecting the government to act sensibly and logically is a real easy path to madness