Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 392 posts

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#51

Post by commandlinefan »

ransom1538 wrote: post #44
hartator wrote: post #9

I think that’s fine to ask social medias to choose between being a publisher or a platform. It’s perfectly fine to push your point of view online as it’s protected by the first. But you should bare consequences for the cases not protected by the first.

This could destroy the tech oligopolies. This would tangle them in unlimited court cases allowing for smaller sites with smaller pockets [1] to flourish. I imagine they will fight this to the death - or drag it in court at least until November elections for a pro-Oligopoly (Biden) camp to take over. [1] Lawyers hate small pockets.

If this does destroy tech oligopolies, they'll have nobody to blame for it but themselves. They've had over a decade to prove that they're fair and impartial and, if anything, have worked overtime to prove the opposite.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#52

Post by Brendinooo »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #27
Spartan-S63 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it is. Conservatives have raced so quickly to the right that they've outrun the Overton Window. So rather than snap back, they're trying to push Big Tech to accelerate the movement of the window.

> Conservatives have raced so quickly to the right ... I'd like to suggest that we use care with the term "conservative". Is it possible that the parent post conflates "conservative" with "Republican"? I'm no authority on the U.S. Republic party, but I know it's sometimes said that that party has shifted hard to "the right". I could believe that's true, which would line up with the parent post. However, some of my ow…

Studies have shown that rank-and-file Democrats have moved leftward much more than rank-and-file Republicans have moved rightward[0], but at least one study shows that Republican representatives have tacked rightward much more dramatically[1].

[0]: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-...

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/02/this-...

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#53

Post by whatshisface »

stefan_ wrote: post #16
matthewdgreen wrote: post #3

This is probably the most impactful tech news on HN right now, but of course it's rated lower than some story on Adobe's plans to mess up PDF.

There is new proposed internet legislation every week, an EFF donation drive every two weeks, Reddit shuts down every month for some protest. At this point, I'm just beyond fatigued by it all.

And when you finally run out of energy, wham, every website will require approval by a committee chaired by the speaker of the house and several tech CEOs. :)

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#54

Post by checker »

hartator wrote: post #29
buhhh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand the first amendment.

Enlight us. For example, calling for the murders of specific people based on their political views or races don’t fall under the first. And social medias allow the spread of some of these messages with no consequences at the moment.

So if I sent a note with the content you just described to everyone I know via UPS and you define this content as a crime, then UPS should be held liable in facilitating this crime? So therefore UPS needs to inspect the content of every package that it delivers to avoid culpability in crimes like this?

Or somehow UPS is different from a social media entity. Then what legally is a social media entity?

These are interesting times. The rules will certainly change; it remains to be seen if they will ultimately change for the better.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#55

Post by sixstringtheory »

hartator wrote: post #29
buhhh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand the first amendment.

Enlight us. For example, calling for the murders of specific people based on their political views or races don’t fall under the first. And social medias allow the spread of some of these messages with no consequences at the moment.

It's not a matter of what kind of speech 1A governs, but what kind of entities.

The government is the entity that is not allowed to restrict legal free speech. Private corporations are not bound by the same rule; they can restrict all they want.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#56

Post by jaywalk »

joshuamorton wrote: post #25
slowmovintarget wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legislation asks them to take their finger off the scales, not put it on the other side. > The current interpretations of Section 230 have enabled online platforms to hide behind the immunity to censor lawful speech in bad faith and is inconsistent with their own terms of service. To remedy this, the department’s legislative proposal revises and clarifies the existing language of Section 230 and replaces vague te…

> The legislation asks them to take their finger off the scales What do you mean? In what way is the DOJ's finger on the scale? Either facebook is free to manage itself as it sees fit, or it isn't. But if it isn't, then that's the finger being on the scale. That's the government controlling facebook. If you want the government controlling facebook's editorial powers, that's all well and good, but it's putting its fin…

Not the DOJ, the tech companies. Their fingers are on the scale.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#57

Post by awnird »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #11
iron0013 wrote: post #2

The barely concealed subtext here seems to be that this is not at all about monopolies, and is really about forcing Google to return search results favorable to conservative politicians and ideologies.

The legislation asks them to take their finger off the scales, not put it on the other side. > The current interpretations of Section 230 have enabled online platforms to hide behind the immunity to censor lawful speech in bad faith and is inconsistent with their own terms of service. To remedy this, the department’s legislative proposal revises and clarifies the existing language of Section 230 and replaces vague te…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24089823 which side of the scale is the finger on?

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#58

Post by analyte123 »

kube-system wrote: post #33

It looks like this makes service providers liable for illegal content if they do not keep logs for 1 year? Am I reading that correctly?

It’s not just illegal content, it includes “facilitation” of any illegal activity. The logs are only required when law enforcement notifies you of the activity. But if they think you know about the activity and are consciously promoting it, they don’t even need to notify you. My guess is they will probably revise this part.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#59

Post by jaywalk »

syspec wrote: post #26

If they would like to investigate social media for anti-conservative bias, does that mean it'd be okay for attorney general of other states to investigate Fox News for bias, or Breitbart? Of course not.

Fox News and Breitbart are both publishers, and do not claim to be platforms to shield themselves from liability. Totally different.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#60

Post by sixstringtheory »

ransom1538 wrote: post #44
hartator wrote: post #9

I think that’s fine to ask social medias to choose between being a publisher or a platform. It’s perfectly fine to push your point of view online as it’s protected by the first. But you should bare consequences for the cases not protected by the first.

This could destroy the tech oligopolies. This would tangle them in unlimited court cases allowing for smaller sites with smaller pockets [1] to flourish. I imagine they will fight this to the death - or drag it in court at least until November elections for a pro-Oligopoly (Biden) camp to take over. [1] Lawyers hate small pockets.

It could also have the reverse effect, because the prospect of unlimited court cases represents a very high financial bar for small newcomers to deal with. The oligopoly already has the funds to deal with it. And/or they comply, creating an ossified, state-controlled set of social networks. Yay.
Post reply on HN