Oppose the Earn IT Act • Hacker News Board

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#51

Post by darkarmani » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 6:08 PM UTC

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #37

unreal6 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you clarify what you mean by the "230 Loophole"? Many believe that tech companies should be fully responsible for anything said on their platforms. If this were the case, I believe this would have an extraordinary chilling effect on speech.

There are already extraordinary chilling effects on speech -- try criticizing Black Lives Matter on any major social media, for example, and you will likely be censored, doxxed, and even receive death threats. Up until now, major social media (FB, Twitter, Youtube etc.) have been free to suppress conservative voices in the name of opposing racism and white supremacists. The tech platforms have been shielded from laws…

You are suggesting a technical solution to a cultural problem.

Speech is supposed to have consequences. How else could it be?

> Up until now, major social media (FB, Twitter, Youtube etc.) have been free to suppress conservative voices in the name of opposing racism and white supremacists.

I guess nazis can be seen as conservative voices by definition. But isn't that the same thing as Fox in the other direction? Corporations suppress viewpoints they don't like. Have you read the ToS?

> As a result, someone gets doxxed, fired from his job, threatened with violence etc., he now has the wherewithal to go after the platform that facilitated the cancel mob

So newspapers will be unable to report the news because people might lose their jobs? People lose their job all of the time when newspapers report on their crimes/actions.

Cancel cultural is a bad cultural phenomenon. We need to develop a healthier culture to fix this problem. Hamfisted Federal laws are not going to make a significant difference here without causing significant harm.

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#52

Post by ypcx » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 6:08 PM UTC

blintz wrote: post #3

I cannot believe that the one thing we have bipartisan consensus on is destroying strong encryption. I guess I’m biased since this is essentially my whole livelihood, but this is crazy, right?

It is worse than just crazy. Government is made of people, and people are corruptible. If the encryption backdoor key leaks from the government to a bad actor, it will create a "national security" issue of magnitude never seen before. If this line of reasoning is correct, then proposing an encryption backdoor is akin to committing an act of treason in itself, because it is purposely weakening the technological infrastructure of the businesses and people in the country and thus the country itself. Attempts like these are either doomed to fail, or they will doom the country to fail.

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#53

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 6:10 PM UTC

hundchenkatze wrote: post #49

ancarda wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you happen to know which ones?

I believe it was the far-reaching section 215, which allowed bulk collection of phone records and other data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_summary_of_the_Patriot...

Maybe the growing obsolescence of the legacy telephone network is why those provisions lapsed, and now we are seeing the fight for a replacement.

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#54

Post by mulmen » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 6:10 PM UTC

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #41

darkarmani wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the problem here? Having federal interference in tech is a terrible idea as any laws are usually overbroad and stifle large amounts of innovation that we haven't imagined yet as an unintended consequence. What multiuser system would survive a libel-law attack from a highly unfriendly jurisdiction? Email, forums, comments, and other forms of posting opinions would immediately cause any small operator to shutdo…

Then the platforms that host social media need to stop suppressing speech. The President wants to kill 230 because Twitter is censoring his tweets. His response was to suspend their protection from liability lawsuits under 230. It's politics; everything's always about politics. Whether this will be good for the industry and society is another question.

They have a right to suppress speech on their platform. If I show up at your house and demand to install campaign signs in your yard because of my first amendment rights what are you going to say?

I suspect “get off my property”.

Twitter and Facebook and everyone else have those same rights.

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#55

Post by magicalist » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 6:10 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #45

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already extraordinary chilling effects on speech -- try criticizing Black Lives Matter on any major social media, for example, and you will likely be censored, doxxed, and even receive death threats. Up until now, major social media (FB, Twitter, Youtube etc.) have been free to suppress conservative voices in the name of opposing racism and white supremacists. The tech platforms have been shielded from laws…

It dangerously goes two ways. Twitter tried to claim their banners on Trump's (and other public officials Tweets) were allowing because of 230! They're trying to have it both ways and it's a very very dangerous game to play. Viva Frei, a Canadian litigator, does a great breakdown of 230: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4XJHX_pNOc

> Twitter tried to claim their banners on Trump's (and other public officials Tweets) were allowing because of 230

I doubt it (though feel free to link to a statement), because they aren't "allowed" to put labels on tweets because of Section 230, they're allowed to do so by the first amendment.

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#56

Post by plokiju21 » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 6:11 PM UTC

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #37

unreal6 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you clarify what you mean by the "230 Loophole"? Many believe that tech companies should be fully responsible for anything said on their platforms. If this were the case, I believe this would have an extraordinary chilling effect on speech.

There are already extraordinary chilling effects on speech -- try criticizing Black Lives Matter on any major social media, for example, and you will likely be censored, doxxed, and even receive death threats. Up until now, major social media (FB, Twitter, Youtube etc.) have been free to suppress conservative voices in the name of opposing racism and white supremacists. The tech platforms have been shielded from laws…

So imagine 230 is repealed. Facebook can now be sued for what crazy people say on their platform. Do you think this will be better or worse for free speech on the internet?

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#57

Post by jmspring » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

blintz wrote: post #3

I cannot believe that the one thing we have bipartisan consensus on is destroying strong encryption. I guess I’m biased since this is essentially my whole livelihood, but this is crazy, right?

There was a huge push for backdoors and weakened crypto during the Clinton years. It's not a right/left thing, it's government control thing.

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#58

Post by cevn » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

annoyingnoob wrote: post #28

cevn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) - vote for Jamie Harrison on Nov 3 in SC Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) - term ends in 2022* Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) - 2024 Dianne Feinstein (D-California) - 2024 as well... good luck with this one

Been working on that last one for years. At least I'm likely to out live her.

I believe you. I've never understood how she garners so much support in progressive Cali of all places.

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#59

Post by darkarmani » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #41

darkarmani wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the problem here? Having federal interference in tech is a terrible idea as any laws are usually overbroad and stifle large amounts of innovation that we haven't imagined yet as an unintended consequence. What multiuser system would survive a libel-law attack from a highly unfriendly jurisdiction? Email, forums, comments, and other forms of posting opinions would immediately cause any small operator to shutdo…

Then the platforms that host social media need to stop suppressing speech. The President wants to kill 230 because Twitter is censoring his tweets. His response was to suspend their protection from liability lawsuits under 230. It's politics; everything's always about politics. Whether this will be good for the industry and society is another question.

> Then the platforms that host social media need to stop suppressing speech.

They clearly state in their ToS that speech is limited on their platform.

> His response was to suspend their protection from liability lawsuits under 230.

Well, his response was to state he was "looking to see if he could suspend their protection". There is nothing to be worried here, because anyone can tell him that the answer is that he can't suspend their protection.

It was just infantile bluffing that in most other situations would cause the person bluffing to lose face, but not in the current political reality. In most situations, it's best to not state orders that you can't possible enforce and that reveal your weakness.

Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act

#60

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Jul 01, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #47

glenda wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, we need way more political parties with direct representation. However, power seems to do a great job of consolidating itself so that won't be an easy task.

First past the post voting tends toward a two party system, because there are strong incentives for smaller parties to consolidate to get to a majority.

Since this is a subject I find fascinating, I'll add this link that I first encountered here on HN long ago: http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/

It's a mathematical model and accompanying explanation that shows that simple plurality (first past the post) voting produces bi-polarization, while other voting methods like approval voting do not. It also shows that the instant-runoff voting method that people are trying to replace FPTP with is non-monotonic, meaning that gaining a few points of support can actually hurt a candidate.