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

71–80 of 116 posts

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

#71

Post by manfredo »

carapace wrote: post #61
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…

Or, remove sec. 230 protections and social media becomes Disneyland and the cesspool recedes to the "darknet". (Whether that's a good thing or not I dunno.)

This will not be the result. The scale of content posted on social media makes it impossible to remove content that could result in lawsuits or charges down the road. The only way for social media companies to avoid liability would be to eliminate moderation. Either that or remove comments and user uploaded content outside of a much smaller pool of vetted people - and at that point it's not longer really social media is it?

This thread is being throttled, reply in edit:

Understand that removing section 230 means that companies are treated as though they are the ones making the statements.that users post. One user recruits terrorists, or participates in sex trafficking and the whole site is responsible for recruiting terrorists and engaging in sex trafficking in the eyes of the law. With stakes this high delegating moderation to users doesn't cut it.

If companies like Facebook or Google don't have the resources to comply then there's zero chance that a smaller company with less resources can do so. There's a reason why removal of section 230 is being pushed by cable and traditional news. It's a death sentence for some of their biggest competitors.

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

#72

Post by lliamander »

While I am concerned about the potential negative consequences to altering section 230, there are several elements in the DOJ proposal that I think would be excellent ideas:

> 3. Promoting Competition A third reform proposal is to clarify that federal antitrust claims are not covered by Section 230 immunity. Over time, the avenues for engaging in both online commerce and speech have concentrated in the hands of a few key players. It makes little sense to enable large online platforms (particularly dominant ones) to invoke Section 230 immunity in antitrust cases, where liability is based on harm to competition, not on third-party speech.

Breaking up advertising monopolies (which all of these social media platforms essentially are) would probably be a good outcome.

> b. Provide Definition of Good Faith. Second, the Department proposes adding a statutory definition of “good faith,” which would limit immunity for content moderation decisions to those done in accordance with plain and particular terms of service and accompanied by a reasonable explanation, unless such notice would impede law enforcement or risk imminent harm to others. Clarifying the meaning of "good faith" should encourage platforms to be more transparent and accountable to their users, rather than hide behind blanket Section 230 protections.

Is it too much to ask for social media companies to actually abide by their TOS? How often have we seen people complain (outside the realm of politics) about getting banned without explanation or appeal? If people are going to be building their livelihoods around these platforms (for content distribution, ad revenue, etc.) then I think it's time for these platforms to be more transparent with their content creators.

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

#73

Post by belltaco »

leetcrew wrote: post #65
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…

freedom of speech is a bit of a red herring here. liability (and even criminal penalties) for certain speech is not generally considered incompatible with the first amendment. keep in mind that section 230 exempts the platform from the usual liability and penalties that an individual or company would normally face.

>keep in mind that section 230 exempts the platform from the usual liability and penalties that an individual or company would normally face.

As it should. If you insult Elon Musk on here, you should sued for it. Why do you think HN should be liable? Section 230 doesnt say you wouldn't be liable.

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

#74

Post by manfredo »

pjkundert wrote: post #68
manfredo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm wondering how you jumped from "K-means Clustering", which implements much stronger and more fairly applied moderation than any current scheme, to "total removal of moderation".

K-means clustering is insufficient to guarantee that no content that results in lawsuits or charges gets uploaded. These are sites with a billions of users. A failure rate of even 0.001% still means a lot of content that can result in charges or lawsuits gets through.

Removal of section 230 means companies can even be criminally liable for things their users post. It's not a question of fairness at that point.

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

#75

Post by amanaplanacanal »

lliamander wrote: post #41
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.

> 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.

I dunno. If readers can see that it is obviously satire, then Twitter just looks silly and no harm has been done. If readers can't tell though, then Twitter is providing a useful service here.

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

#76

Post by joshuamorton »

pjkundert wrote: post #67
joshuamorton wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I struggle to see how clustering trolls so they're just trolling each-other is a problem? K-means clustering can quite easily distinguish between "echo chambers" -- where people just want to hear others who parrot their opinions and downvote any other voice, from "reasoned debate" -- where people downvote others who spout un-reasoned opinion, but upvote people they don't agree with, but who bring reasoned, respectful…

Echo chambers cause an overall increase in extremism. After reddit banned /r/fatpeoplehate, reddit as a whole became less mean.

When you give extremism room to congregate, extremists feel more empowered. (This is generally true, but relevant only to extremism at the moment).

Unless you simultaneously cut them off from the rest of the site, which in the context of reddit, twitter, and Facebook doesn't make sense, you just make things worse.

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

#77

Post by vharuck »

lliamander wrote: post #60
burlesona wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 crowde…

>Free speech is speech which is (at least largely) free of consequence.

Only useless speech comes with no consequences. It's pretty much a tautology. I don't see how your definition of "free speech" is useful. In what world would it ever exist?

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

#78

Post by sub7 »

If Twitter has taught us anything, it's that everyone should not have an equal voice and an equal platform. A person or company's reach or audience should be a function of 1) what they're talking about and 2) what credibility they have re: 1.

I'm all for anyone being allowed to say anything but I'm completely against anyone being allowed to amplify anything.

Also, the Republicans would do well to introduce legislation expanding data portability and making it much harder for these completely unethical platforms to keep your data locked into their walled gardens. Friends names, birthdays and emails as a csv is basically impossible to export from FB for example.

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

#79

Post by amanaplanacanal »

lliamander wrote: post #60
burlesona wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 crowde…

Most people probably don't push their definition of free speech that far. If I kick someone out of my house because they are being an asshole, that doesn't feel like an infringement on their free speech to me.

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

#80

Post by lliamander »

akersten wrote: post #17
commandlinefan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If you'll look at the DOJ proposal, it's not requiring you to turn your message board into 4chan. You can moderate whatever you like, you just have to be clear in the TOS what content you are moderating.
Post reply on HN