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

51–60 of 116 posts

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

#51

Post by akersten »

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…

If Twitter themselves posted a tweet defaming someone, they'd have the exact same liabilities as those reporters at CNN, who are employed by CNN to create content for CNN.

Twitter can't be sued for a libelous tweet that someone else posts. Just like Fox can't be sued for a libelous comment that someone else leaves on a story. Well, you can sue anyone for anything, the point is neither of these suits would be successful.

I mean, this is just a common sense way of things working. In fact, the liability following-through to whoever actually did the bad thing was the entire motivation behind why S230 was created.

> 230 protection, which was designed to protect neutral platforms like a utility,

The text of section 230 has none of the words "neutral platform" nor "utility," nor are they legal concepts that exist in this context.

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

#52

Post by carapace »

> any platform providing secure end-to-end encryption would face a torrent of litigation

I do not see this. By definition content transmitted with end-to-end encryption cannot be moderated. How would anyone but the sender and receiver know that a given message contains "illegal content"?

(I put "illegal content" in quotes because it makes my skin crawl, even though in practice I think some content should be suppressed (but I also don't want to be the one to say which content should be suppressed with the force of law because that's hard-to-impossible, and my heart's not in it.) It's a little like anti-smoking laws: technically a gross violation of personal freedom, but one that I'm not prepared to vote down until smoking is a fringe fetish.)

In terms of platform vs. conduit it seems to me that e2ee forces the service provider into the "conduit" category.

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

#53

Post by FpUser »

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.

Because they are supposedly active in moderating content (I am not talking about taking down illegal stuff here). Moderating content to fit their narrative arguably makes them a publisher with all the consequences.

I guess what they are saying (entities that are meddling with 230) is either be totally neutral with the exception of taking down illegal stuff and spam or face the outcome.

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

#54

Post by joshuamorton »

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…

One of the big complaints towards these platforms is that content is already too clustered (the filter bubble effect). Clustering people makes things worse.

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

#55

Post by manfredo »

pjkundert wrote: post #46
manfredo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

So let me get this straight: the total removal of moderation, and the subsequent inclusion of content which espouses ideas of racial superiority and extermination of peoples is a positive change?

Calling for violence against groups of people is not illegal. Only specific, actionable incitement of violence [1]. I don't think you really understand what total absence of moderation really means.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

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

#56

Post by csnover »

josephh wrote: post #37
csnover wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, I see. My mistake. It makes no sense to me that a user choosing to censor content would solve any institutional problem so it didn’t even cross my mind that someone would bring it up. Thanks for the clarification!

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

#57

Post by joshuamorton »

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…

In addition to the they other comments, we know from history that section 230 was written to encourage sites to moderate content.

The historical revisionism around platform neutrality and section 230 is all made up.

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

#58

Post by rbecker »

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…

In this case 'open web' would have to stop short of allowing a comments section or forums (such as HN).

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

#59

Post by sgift »

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…

> This is the result of years of work to remove any dissenting voice from the generally Left-leaning sites of the Internet

Not a single one of the big sites is left-leaning, they are centrist (at most) and behave accordingly. The problem is that so many people believe the center is farther on the right than it is, so every centrist argument becomes left wing extremism, what is called centrist is really right wing and what is called right wing is extreme right. With that in mind it's no surprise right wing content gets blocked more often - the left wing equivalent (e.g. kill everyone in the name of the class fight!) doesn't really exist on Twitter & co.

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

#60

Post by lliamander »

burlesona wrote: post #29
dilap wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s false. There has always been a difference between freedom to say what you want and freedom from consequences. The famous adage “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Newspapers are liable for libel suits and other legal remedies if they publish false and damaging information. I think it’s fair to consider Facebook a publisher when their algorithms take content and distribute it to the world better than…

> There has always been a difference between freedom to say what you want and freedom from consequences.

No. Free speech is speech which is (at least largely) free of consequence. Not just free of legal consequences either, but social consequences as well (such as getting fired from your job for having certain political opinions). Free speech =/= first amendment.

> The famous adage “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”

Which was used as justification to punish anti-war protesters.

> Newspapers are liable for libel suits and other legal remedies if they publish false and damaging information.

Which is part of a set of well known, long-standing exceptions to the first amendment.

Post reply on HN