no, you don't know how it works, that court case is referring to the provider for said internet serivce being liable for anything and everything displayed on it's service regardless if the content originated from the provider or a user within the service.
You're saying that the Stratton v. Prodigy case is irrelevant to Reddit when the only thing making the connection to Reddit being liable for all content on the site is a stuffty picture from 8chan citing that case? So if not Stratton v. Prodigy what case law says this?
But in this situation, the content in question is originating from said provider rather than the user, but being masked as content originating from the user.
So since several comments were changed all content is from the provider? This raises doubt over the use of reddit comments as evidence which should have already been questionable evidence without more circumstantial evidence to connect them.
Not to mention that court case pre-dates Reddit and is completely unrelated to Reddit and to what's going on within Reddit, they are editing users posts and tried to hide it, they are therefore automatically liable for any and every single post on that website given the implications that they edit posts in secret hoping no one will notice.
Just because a court case predates something doesn't mean it doesn't set a precedent for the law. Where is the idea that they are automatically liable for any and every single post coming from exactly? Prodigy hosted their own content and had software in place that would automatically filter out obscene language. That seems more than similar enough to be used as an argument in court. It could always swing the other way, I don't see it going very far though.
Are you talking about different statutes or case law than us cause you're making an awful lot of statements as if they're fact without referencing anything..
