this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2026
58 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
43303 readers
194 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are websites still protected by Section 230 when the results are editorialized on the fly by an LLM?
This is undecided by courts.
From what I've found from some simple research, it's possible that if it's reproducing the same information as another user that the website is protected, possibly even if the LLM modified the exact presentation of that information.
If it's creating new claims, then I think it'd be likely that whoever is running the service would be liable. Who knows though, since they might just claim that the new claims are from its training data and therefore they are protected.
In an ideal world, we'd just follow Germany's example and hold the website liable for any new content generated by a LLM. Ideally, if you make shit up, you made the claim, and if you're parroting a user, the user made the claim.
I'd imagine due to current circumstances, the US would want to shield AI companies though because politicians want money and the SCOTUS is useless.