Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 434 posts

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#421

Post by brigandish »

michaelmrose wrote: post #403
brigandish wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rule is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This via the EFF[1]: > Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise…

To be clear what most people pushing this position want is for Twitter to be so afraid of ruinous lawsuits that they are afraid to ban people who the rest of us find deplorable. Does that describe your position?

No, but what would be wrong with a company being afraid of ruinous lawsuits if those lawsuits had merit?

You or I should be afraid of ruinous lawsuits because even one, one without any merit, can cost us a lot. We do not have the resources of Twitter, we do not have a permanent legal staff, we do not have a pit of money, we do not have wealthy backers, we do not have the ear of powerful people. They can fight a suit as far as it can go and actually create precedent in higher courts that you or I could never afford to reach. They can even face down a government lawsuit.

If lawsuits were spurious they'd soon put a stop to them.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#422

Post by brigandish »

root_axis wrote: post #382
brigandish wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rule is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This via the EFF[1]: > Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise…

> My first guess would be a slew of defamation cases, probably by touchy celebrities, just as with other publishers like tabloid newspapers. Ok but clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content. In effect, it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down. Would you say that fairly describes your position or am I misinterpr…

> clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content

I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can.

> it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down

That is technically known as a false dilemma.

- They can remove shadowbanning - They can remove algorithmic manipulation, of all and any kinds not instituted by the user - They can adhere to the rules they've set up, no retroactive action, no action for things off of the "platform", no new rules that just happen to affect their political opponents - They can refrain from reframing content - They can decide to become a smaller company (maybe more profitable (at last;), focus can help, niches help, size isn't everything) - They can hire more moderators - They can make the algorithmic tools they use available to users, if you don't want to read "deplorable" content then why not give you they power to make the choice and others the power to continue to read it? - They can make the rules clearer, tighter, more accessible.

My Lord, there are so many choices available and they're not all mutually exclusive, and this isn't even an exhaustive list.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#423

Post by michaelmrose »

brigandish wrote: post #421
michaelmrose wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear what most people pushing this position want is for Twitter to be so afraid of ruinous lawsuits that they are afraid to ban people who the rest of us find deplorable. Does that describe your position?

No, but what would be wrong with a company being afraid of ruinous lawsuits if those lawsuits had merit ? You or I should be afraid of ruinous lawsuits because even one, one without any merit, can cost us a lot. We do not have the resources of Twitter, we do not have a permanent legal staff, we do not have a pit of money, we do not have wealthy backers, we do not have the ear of powerful people. They can fight a suit…

If they weren't immune from lawsuits for things as simple as libel by their users there would be a 1000 meritorious lawsuits per hour. It would be impossible to run a site with user generated content. This is the absurd conclusion that nobody is willing to rule for. Once again since you haven't in several comments been very illuminating. What is the desired end result.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#424

Post by matz1 »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #400
matz1 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You’d expend effort to prevent people from learning? I won't prevent people from learning rather I won't force them to learn if that what they prefer. >A democracy requires an educated electorate, so you are anti-democracy? Democracy doesn't require an educated electorate, it only require majority. If the majority is 'stupid' (stupid is relative) then stupid it is.

So do you think putting a link to more info next to a presidents tweet is “forcing” people to learn? A democracy ruled by an ignorant majority winds up as authoritarian, but you already knew what that quote I paraphrased means. Keep deflecting.

>So do you think putting a link to more info next to a presidents tweet is “forcing” people to learn

No, unless you force somebody to put that link.

>A democracy ruled by an ignorant majority winds up as authoritaria

If majority wants authoritarian then authoritarian it is, thats democracy.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#425

Post by root_axis »

brigandish wrote: post #422
root_axis wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My first guess would be a slew of defamation cases, probably by touchy celebrities, just as with other publishers like tabloid newspapers. Ok but clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content. In effect, it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down. Would you say that fairly describes your position or am I misinterpr…

> clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can. > it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down That is technically known as a false dil…

> I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can.

Right... Because they have section 230 protection. Forums and newspaper websites are not "counted as publishers" with respect to comments you make on the site exactly the same way twitter isn't "counted as a publisher" for your tweets.

> They can remove shadowbanning - They can remove algorithmic manipulation, of all and any kinds not instituted by the user - They can adhere to the rules they've set up, no retroactive action...

Why is it a false dilemma? You've offered up an arbitrary list of product and business suggestions based on your own opinions about how twitter should be run, but nothing you've said seems to contradict the conclusion that twitter should lose the legal protection that allows them to keep the site open if they moderate the site.

Let's use a clear example. Do you think twitter should be shut down because of decisions like hiding Trump's tweet?

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#426

Post by brigandish »

root_axis wrote: post #425
brigandish wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> clearly that is an impossible standard for a website where users are able to post content I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can. > it seems you're suggesting Twitter must choose between moderating their platform and being shut down That is technically known as a false dil…

> I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can. Right... Because they have section 230 protection. Forums and newspaper websites are not "counted as publishers" with respect to comments you make on the site exactly the same way twitter isn't "counted as a publisher" for your tweet…

> Right... Because they have section 230 protection.

That's a good point. You're still begging the question with regards to an "impossible standard" so… I'm going to shrug until you come up with your own evidence for that.

> Why is it a false dilemma?

You (repeatedly) give two options when there are more. We must preserve the status quo or we die! is not a compelling argument to anyone with an ounce of imagination.

> arbitrary list

No, they're not "arbitrary", and I'm beginning to lose my patience with you.

> based on your own opinions

This is my account, I write my own opinions using it.

> that allows them to keep the site open

Begging the question. The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list" because they would then retain protection even under a narrower interpetation of the law. Hence, not arbitrary.

> Let's use a clear example. Do you think twitter should be shut down because of decisions like hiding Trump's tweet?

I don't think Twitter should be shut down or would be shut down, regardless of whether they retained protection, and loaded questions that are entirely facile are where I draw the line.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#427

Post by brigandish »

michaelmrose wrote: post #423
brigandish wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but what would be wrong with a company being afraid of ruinous lawsuits if those lawsuits had merit ? You or I should be afraid of ruinous lawsuits because even one, one without any merit, can cost us a lot. We do not have the resources of Twitter, we do not have a permanent legal staff, we do not have a pit of money, we do not have wealthy backers, we do not have the ear of powerful people. They can fight a suit…

If they weren't immune from lawsuits for things as simple as libel by their users there would be a 1000 meritorious lawsuits per hour. It would be impossible to run a site with user generated content. This is the absurd conclusion that nobody is willing to rule for. Once again since you haven't in several comments been very illuminating. What is the desired end result.

> Once again since you haven't in several comments been very illuminating.

If you're unable to maintain a respectful conversation then perhaps Twitter is a better place for you to spend your time.

> If they weren't immune from lawsuits for things as simple as libel by their users there would be a 1000 meritorious lawsuits per hour

They could and would be immune if they did not editorialise. That's the whole point.

> What is the desired end result.

I don't have a desired end result because I'm not planning some utopian outcome. Let people be free to express themselves unencumbered and without meddling for overt political outcomes or some form of misplaced paternalism, that's it.

If that's not illuminating enough for you then you have my permission to reply to someone else.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#428

Post by root_axis »

brigandish wrote: post #426
root_axis wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm able to post comments on many websites that are counted as publishers - try any online newspaper. I was able to post on countless forums long before Twitter appeared and still can. Right... Because they have section 230 protection. Forums and newspaper websites are not "counted as publishers" with respect to comments you make on the site exactly the same way twitter isn't "counted as a publisher" for your tweet…

> Right... Because they have section 230 protection. That's a good point. You're still begging the question with regards to an "impossible standard" so… I'm going to shrug until you come up with your own evidence for that. > Why is it a false dilemma? You ( repeatedly ) give two options when there are more. We must preserve the status quo or we die! is not a compelling argument to anyone with an ounce of imagination.…

> You're still begging the question with regards to an "impossible standard" so… I'm going to shrug until you come up with your own evidence for that.

If twitter becomes legally responsible for anything posted by the millions of users that publish content to the site then it's obviously impossible for them to keep the site running, the logic is very clear.

> You (repeatedly) give two options when there are more

No, there are only two, either the site has section 230 protection or it doesn't, there is no in-between state.

> We must preserve the status quo or we die!

An impressive strawman for someone with such an obsession for formal fallacy labels.

> The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list" because they would then retain protection even under a narrower interpetation of the law. Hence, not arbitrary.

Your list of business suggestions are just ideas you made up, they have no legal meaning, hence arbitrary. Business decisions like "shadowbanning", "retroactive action", "reframing content" and even explicit partisan bias are 100% legal and Twitter is within their rights to operate their business in such a fashion.

> I don't think Twitter should be shut down or would be shut down

Yet in your own words:

> The site could be kept open by following my "arbitrary list"

So in other words, the site shouldn't be kept open if they don't follow your legally meaningless suggestions.

> and loaded questions that are entirely facile are where I draw the line.

lol whatever, if you're so intellectually dishonest that you won't admit to the implied conclusions of your own argument then I'm wasting my time anyway.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#429

Post by michaelmrose »

brigandish wrote: post #427
michaelmrose wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they weren't immune from lawsuits for things as simple as libel by their users there would be a 1000 meritorious lawsuits per hour. It would be impossible to run a site with user generated content. This is the absurd conclusion that nobody is willing to rule for. Once again since you haven't in several comments been very illuminating. What is the desired end result.

> Once again since you haven't in several comments been very illuminating. If you're unable to maintain a respectful conversation then perhaps Twitter is a better place for you to spend your time. > If they weren't immune from lawsuits for things as simple as libel by their users there would be a 1000 meritorious lawsuits per hour They could and would be immune if they did not editorialise. That's the whole point . >…

I said previously

>To be clear what most people pushing this position want is for Twitter to be so afraid of ruinous lawsuits that they are afraid to ban people who the rest of us find deplorable.

and this absolutely IS your position albeit you would say for more nuanced moral reasons.

From my perspective its a win win. On the one hand I get to see deplorables banned from twitter on the other this ought to be great motivation for decentralized tools that are the only thing that can possibly be actually censorship proof.

I fully believe that your Facebook and twitter ought to be running on a $100 box on your desk where nobody can censor it with a click. Trying to fix after the fact the situation of having your ability to communicate politically depend on the courtesy of another is a losing proposition.

Nobody is going to apply the CDA in the way that the president wants especially not before November and the will to protect conservative voices will disintegrate once they have lost the presidency and the senate as well.

If you care about truly open communication donate money to people making decentralized tools instead of waiting for the injustice department to do anything useful.

Re: Things from leaked audio of Mark Zuckerberg and his employees

#430

Post by prh8 »

Pils wrote: post #293
prh8 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying that these people agreeing with his decision are from white nationalist orgs? Or that they fear people from those orgs? If 1, that seems unlikely that would be the majority of people. If 2, well, that's the opposite of the case here.

I'm agreeing with the parent comment about the chilling effect that radical political groups can have on moderate dissent. White Nationalism's relationship with Law Enforcement/military is pretty well documented, and is very clearly under the umbrella of radical political movements. But if that's causing confusion, I used that as an explicit example of the phenomena the parent comment was describing. I am curious by…

By opposite, I was just saying that it's not people afraid of white nationalists, but rather conservatives afraid of liberals disdain.
Post reply on HN