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

41–50 of 116 posts

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

#41

Post by lliamander »

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.

> they fact checked his tweet.

They're now "fact checking" obvious satire. That's not merely moderation, but applying a false context that changes the meaning of the tweet.

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

#42

Post by arprocter »

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 a double standard if Joe Sixpack can sign up for an account and claim the moon is hollow and made of cheese without it getting flagged

Maybe if Twitter decided all verified accounts will be subject to fact-checking?

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

#43

Post by _-david-_ »

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 is not because they fact checked his tweet. This was in the works for quite some time before the fact checking.

This was a few days before: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/23/21268433/president-trump-...

And this was from last year: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/15/18626785/white-house-trum...

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

#44

Post by ashtonkem »

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.

You’re free to make an argument that they should be liable, but they are not actually liable under the law as it exists today.

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

#45

Post by aa66tt55rr44 »

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…

None of those sites are left-leaning

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

#46

Post by pjkundert »

manfredo wrote: post #36
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…

It only "is not a positive change", suddenly, now that websites friendly to the accepted dogma du jour are at risk of being exposed to it!

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

#47

Post by vkou »

chrisco255 wrote: post #40
akersten wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Fox has been photoshopping a man with an assault rifle onto pictures of a peaceful protest for the last week.

What legal consequences have they faced, or are they going to face for these blatant lies?

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

#48

Post by ashtonkem »

jmole wrote: post #35
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.

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

These arguments are always full of motivated reasoning; they start with the desired goal (Twitter shouldn’t be allowed to block people I like, usually), then they try to work backwards from the law to that outcome. This produces some fairly hilarious misinterpretations of how Section 230 works, along with the occasional misreference to State Action by the better read.

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

#49

Post by mcintyre1994 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #40
akersten wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Here's section 230, it's very short: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Please can you explain how this was "designed to protect neutral platforms like a utility", given that the text contains none of the words "neutral", "platform" or "utility"? It also doesn't contain "editorialise" or any variant that I can see.

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

#50

Post by ashtonkem »

speeder wrote: post #27
akersten wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think he meant that people posting instructions on how to see country flags or how to make a swastika or gay rainbow flag should not be moderated, of you do moderate then you are liable (for example if someone post instructions to sew a KKK hood and you refuse to remove that, but you remove other things, then you get sued for condoning hate speech)

The problem is that it’s very hard to write a law that both bans the moderation of political speech, and would allow the hypothetical sewing forum operator to ban non-sewing content.

How do you define political? How do you handle extreme political ideologies that advocate for violence too? Who has the power to decide which speech is moderation proof? How do you avoid abuse when politicians eventually control such a system? And how do you survive legal challenges to the fact that you’ve created a third type of extra protected speech?

Post reply on HN