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

31–40 of 116 posts

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

#31

Post by ocdtrekkie »

api wrote: post #15

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 n…

Exactly. It would lead to a smaller Internet. Giant platforms built around scaling past what human moderators can handle would be unviable, but subject-focused communities and human-curated ones would thrive.

Bear in mind, the law is not going to actually or reasonably crucify you because someone left a nasty comment on your blog while you were asleep (nobody seriously believes this can happen). The law needs to be able to go after companies that built social platforms that create extremely bad social effects at scale, who are focused on creating as much engagement as possible to fuel ad revenue.

Honestly, the "largest" social platform that would likely benefit from Section 230's repeal is Reddit: They'd have to make some policy changes and probably discourage more cross-posting, and very large communities might need company-hired moderation. But the general design of it being built around small communities moderated individually is likely to allow it to adapt to the change pretty well. Maybe they'd shut down the really large general subs, but it'd be pushed more towards being a shared login way to be a part of a bunch of distinct communities.

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

#32

Post by chrisco255 »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #24
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…

It's hard not to see this as an authoritarian backlash to "speaking truth to power" when the President is arguing Twitter should lose 230 because they fact checked his tweet. Fact checking a President's tweet translates quite naturally to speaking truth to power.

It's also editorializing Twitter...ergo Twitter is no longer a neutral platform and should be subject to all the same liabilities that Fox, CNN, etc are including libel and defamation.

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

#33

Post by akersten »

chrisco255 wrote: post #32
mcintyre1994 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard not to see this as an authoritarian backlash to "speaking truth to power" when the President is arguing Twitter should lose 230 because they fact checked his tweet. Fact checking a President's tweet translates quite naturally to speaking truth to power.

It's also editorializing Twitter...ergo Twitter is no longer a neutral platform and should be subject to all the same liabilities that Fox, CNN, etc are including libel and defamation.

What? Not only does the legal concept of a "neutral platform" not exist, the examples you cite (Fox, CNN) are certainly not "neutral platforms." They aren't responsible for what their commenters post on their sites either (and it is certainly... eye-opening to check out their comment sections sometimes).

Twitter already does have libel liabilities, just like Fox and CNN, if they were to themselves post something libelous - just like if Fox were to produce a segment themselves that is libelous.

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

#34

Post by mcintyre1994 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #32
mcintyre1994 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard not to see this as an authoritarian backlash to "speaking truth to power" when the President is arguing Twitter should lose 230 because they fact checked his tweet. Fact checking a President's tweet translates quite naturally to speaking truth to power.

It's also editorializing Twitter...ergo Twitter is no longer a neutral platform and should be subject to all the same liabilities that Fox, CNN, etc are including libel and defamation.

No of course they're not a neutral platform - I assume they ban spam and they have a terms of service and require adult content to be marked and all sorts of things. Isn't the point of 230 that they're allowed to moderate without taking on those liabilities because otherwise they obviously wouldn't exist?

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

#35

Post by jmole »

chrisco255 wrote: post #32
mcintyre1994 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard not to see this as an authoritarian backlash to "speaking truth to power" when the President is arguing Twitter should lose 230 because they fact checked his tweet. Fact checking a President's tweet translates quite naturally to speaking truth to power.

It's also editorializing Twitter...ergo Twitter is no longer a neutral platform and should be subject to all the same liabilities that Fox, CNN, etc are including libel and defamation.

why should twitter be responsible for user content? Certainly libel and defamation already apply to any material that twitter themselves post.

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

#36

Post by manfredo »

pjkundert wrote: post #19

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…

> Liberty means liberty for all, especially those whom you intensely disagree with.

Correct, and said people have the liberty to create their own websites.

Freedom of speech also means freedom from compelled speech. Removing section 230 means all sites have to be like 4chan - devoid of moderation and hosting the content of genuine Nazis and the like.

While it's fair to point out that moderation may be biased, forcing sites to remove moderation for fear of being held liable for content users post is not a positive change.

Note that the groups pushing the removal of section 230 are some of social media's biggest competitors (namely traditional media). This is a calculated move. Remove section 230 and social media becomes a cesspool. This pushes users out of social media and back in front of cable news and newspapers.

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

#37

Post by josephh »

csnover wrote: post #22
dx87 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What happens if the users are the ones that moderate to include only the libellous content, per the GP’s example? Is the provider then responsible for that in this world where more moderation = more liability? Do the volunteer moderators become the liable parties instead? What if a user is also an employee of the company, does that make the company liable again? While I like the idea of self-policing communities, it…

GP’s comment isn’t referring to the tools given to volunteer moderators. They are referring (and strictly so) to the tools that end-users can use to moderate what they themselves want to see.

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

#38

Post by akersten »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #34
chrisco255 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also editorializing Twitter...ergo Twitter is no longer a neutral platform and should be subject to all the same liabilities that Fox, CNN, etc are including libel and defamation.

No of course they're not a neutral platform - I assume they ban spam and they have a terms of service and require adult content to be marked and all sorts of things. Isn't the point of 230 that they're allowed to moderate without taking on those liabilities because otherwise they obviously wouldn't exist?

Yes, that's the entire point of Section 230. Should those protections be removed, most of these sites would increase their moderation, and remove anything potentially libelous. A huge chilling effect on speech.

There is an ongoing effort to upend those protections and bifurcate the internet into locked-down, heavily-moderated walled-garden sites, and sites that have no moderation at all. The motivations behind this movement range from malice (wanting the internet to become an unproductive wasteland) to political revenge (their favorite user got banned from Twitter and they want to lash out). I suppose "misunderstanding" of what S230 actually does is another motivation, but at this point if someone is still making an argument against it from that perspective, they're not arguing in good faith.

The result of removing S230 protections is not "the internet becomes a wonderful place where all 'political opinions' can be expressed equally," the result is "all Internet sites become 4chan or Nickelodeon, pick one."

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

#39

Post by tmaly »

I hate to beat a dead horse, but we do have a right to free speech.

The issue on encryption should be addressed by 4th amendment protections.

We don't have to frogs in a pot of water. There is enough tech to give us enormous reach to a broad audience. This debate does not have to happen in some basement in congress with lobbyists hidden away from the public.

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

#40

Post by chrisco255 »

akersten wrote: post #33
chrisco255 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also editorializing Twitter...ergo Twitter is no longer a neutral platform and should be subject to all the same liabilities that Fox, CNN, etc are including libel and defamation.

What? Not only does the legal concept of a "neutral platform" not exist, the examples you cite (Fox, CNN) are certainly not "neutral platforms." They aren't responsible for what their commenters post on their sites either (and it is certainly... eye-opening to check out their comment sections sometimes). Twitter already does have libel liabilities, just like Fox and CNN, if they were to themselves post something libe…

No they don't. Twitter cannot be sued for something someone tweets that is false or defamatory about someone else. That individual tweeter is responsible. Unlike Fox or CNN who are responsible for what their reporters and commentators say. If Twitter ventures against the spirit of 230 protection, which was designed to protect neutral platforms like a utility, then they deserve to lose it. It's not about who produces a segment, Twitter is clearly the publisher and distributor. 230 was designed to protect free speech not to allow unlimited corporate intervention into speech.
Post reply on HN