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

Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 116 posts

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#11

Post by dilap »

burlesona wrote: post #6

Honestly I am not sure legal immunity for network platforms is actually a good thing. Those platforms are very much like traditional publishers in that they greatly amplify and spread the content posted on their network. Amplification* without accountability is very different than freedom of speech. * if you want to quibble with “amplification,” I would more specifically say that _asynchronous_ and/or _targeted_ dist…

You basically just don't believe in free speech. Which is, historically, the more popular position. The idea that ideas should be able to amplified & spread w/o institutional control is rather radical.

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#12

Post by CerealFounder »

notadev wrote: post #5

>Section 230 is an essential legal pillar for online speech. And when powerful people don’t like that speech, or the platforms that host it, the provision becomes a scapegoat for just about every tech-related problem. Does anyone actually believe this is an authoritarian attempt to squash speech that is "speaking truth to power"? This is the result of years of work to remove any dissenting voice from the generally Le…

Libertarians are real free enterprise until it affects their lives...

But before I get thrashed for hurthing feelings, the real problem is these networks act like pubs and open networks. Paid amplification is almost certainly the problem in that it allows money to act as speech. by allowing it to reach more people that didnt seek it. Historically a wild fringe idea stayed that way because it was hard to convert people at scale. Now a fringe/bad idea coming from a group of power and "pump up the juice."

It would be interesting if they either limited the pay for audience equation or create hypertransperency around who is behind the message.

All in all, Facebook is going to be heavily regulated over the next decade and I hope they're diversifying somewhere. The newspapers were fractured, "The Bells," and it seems historically governments step in after about 10-20 years of abuse.

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#13

Post by dx87 »

csnover wrote: post #7
leetcrew wrote: post #3

most of this stuff sounds like bad news, but I have felt for a while that we need to address the issue of moderation on the largest social media platforms. I don't think it should be a binary choice between safe harbor and doing any moderation whatsoever, but there ought to be some sort of gradient for liability. that is, the more you remove stuff you don't like, the more accountable you should be for whatever stuff…

> the more you remove stuff you don't like, the more accountable you should be for whatever stuff you continue to host It seems to me that this just creates a perverse incentive to never moderate anything. How would that be an improvement? At a minimum, you’d end up with a space overrun by spammers.

The platform can provide tools that allows users to moderate what they want. RES on reddit is good at that, you can make it so you don't see posts from certain users, filter posts and links, etc.

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#14

Post by [deleted] »

burlesona wrote: post #6

Honestly I am not sure legal immunity for network platforms is actually a good thing. Those platforms are very much like traditional publishers in that they greatly amplify and spread the content posted on their network. Amplification* without accountability is very different than freedom of speech. * if you want to quibble with “amplification,” I would more specifically say that _asynchronous_ and/or _targeted_ dist…

[deleted]

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#15

Post by api »

Let's say S230 was dropped. Would this really damage free speech online, or would it damage platforms and lead to a resurgence of the open web?

Edit: also would it genuinely endanger end-to-end encryption or only do so in the context of these platforms?

It's a genuine question since I don't understand all the nuances of these laws. If I put up a personal site without S230 protections, am I at risk? What about truly neutral ISPs and cloud hosts that do not curate content but just sling packets? What if all the data is encrypted from my server to the end user anyway?

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#16

Post by Artistry121 »

notadev wrote: post #5

>Section 230 is an essential legal pillar for online speech. And when powerful people don’t like that speech, or the platforms that host it, the provision becomes a scapegoat for just about every tech-related problem. Does anyone actually believe this is an authoritarian attempt to squash speech that is "speaking truth to power"? This is the result of years of work to remove any dissenting voice from the generally Le…

I actually believe that and the fact that a "fact checking" button sparked this is evidence of that. It's not liberal or conservative - its government attempts to limit information and discussion. And it should be fought.

These sites remove doxxing and hate from many angles. Look at the subreddit communities reddit has banned - they're not all right wing - many are just bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Reddit_communiti...

Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, etc. all are right leaning individuals who have a massive following via these platforms.

Logan Paul was deplatformed and he's not right wing.

And both sides have a ton of people being trolls. Did you ever read r/theDonald or r/Conservative or comments sections on Sargon of Aakaad?

Fox News' Tucker Carlson segments are routinely recommended by the youtube algorithm to me despite me having no interest in him and rarely or never clicking on them.

Does anyone actually believe this is an authoritarian attempt to squash speech that is "speaking truth to power"?

Yes - this speaks to my lived experience and my understood experience of the trend in authoritarian countries.

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#17

Post by akersten »

commandlinefan wrote: post #10
all_factz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d rather the sites themselves decide than the US government decide. You can always go to a different site. But once we have the government intervening and saying “this is what is acceptable speech online, this is what isn’t”, that’s a whole nother level of censorship I’d rather avoid.

> this is what is acceptable speech online, this is what isn’t But that isn't what they're saying. They're saying, "if you are deciding what is acceptable speech, you're now responsible for it." And for the record, I absolutely agree.

I only consider sewing-related posts acceptable on my sewing message board. If I moderate anything else, I'm suddenly responsible for any libel that gets posted while I'm asleep?

That position is absurd.

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#18

Post by manfredo »

notadev wrote: post #5

>Section 230 is an essential legal pillar for online speech. And when powerful people don’t like that speech, or the platforms that host it, the provision becomes a scapegoat for just about every tech-related problem. Does anyone actually believe this is an authoritarian attempt to squash speech that is "speaking truth to power"? This is the result of years of work to remove any dissenting voice from the generally Le…

I'm not sure how this makes the internet better. So now sites have to host actual neo Nazis and the KKK for fear of losing section 230 protections? Oh and if you have a site focused on programming or motorcycling you have to host completely off topic content because otherwise you lose section 230 protections?

The whole point of section 230 is to make it so that sites can moderate user generated content without becoming legally liable for it. Removing this forces every site to become 4chan for fear of losing section 230 protections. This isn't a positive change in my view.

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#19

Post by pjkundert »

Liberty means liberty for all, especially those whom you intensely disagree with. It also means allowing someone to do or say something you consider stupid -- because, someone, somewhere will consider whatever you're doing stupid; do you really want some random self-righteous inquisitor shutting your speech off?

Furthermore, if some group is really proposing or performing heinous, illegal acts, we should want to have them feel comfortable associating with each-other in public. Police can then do their job, infiltrate these groups, and track down, charge and prosecute these miscreants.

I just don't want to see it. And, they probably don't want to see me berating them. There's a solution to these kinds of situations...

We're techies here; I find it surprising that no-one has considered K-means Clustering: https://brainbomb.org/Artificial-Intelligence/Machine-Learni....

My hypothesis is that Google, FaceBook, et.al. have investigated using k-means clustering, and have decided against it, because it reduces the "drama" on their platforms, reducing their revenues...

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#20

Post by youareostriches »

notadev wrote: post #5

>Section 230 is an essential legal pillar for online speech. And when powerful people don’t like that speech, or the platforms that host it, the provision becomes a scapegoat for just about every tech-related problem. Does anyone actually believe this is an authoritarian attempt to squash speech that is "speaking truth to power"? This is the result of years of work to remove any dissenting voice from the generally Le…

Reddit prohibits content which:

* Is illegal

* Is involuntary pornography

* Is sexual or suggestive content involving minors

* Encourages or incites violence

* Threatens, harasses, or bullies or encourages others to do so

* Is personal and confidential information

* Impersonates an individual or entity in a misleading or deceptive manner

* Uses Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services

* Is spam*

https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy

A few of the banned subreddits are:

* Beatingwomen

* Braincels

* CreepShots

* CringeAnarchy

* DarkNetMarkets

* Deepfakes

* FatPeopleHate

* Gore

Your position basically insinuates that right-wing discourse is impossible without violating these rules.

But I think that’s pretty unfair considering the range and depth of conservative intellectual thought.

Maybe you should encourage the more moderate segments of conservatism to speak out against extremists who use the language of racist violence instead of defending them.

Post reply on HN