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

121–130 of 392 posts

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#121

Post by yunohn »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #100
InTheArena wrote: post #19

here is the DoJ's breakdown and red-line changes: 1. Incentivizing Online Platforms to Address Illicit Content The first category of potential reforms is aimed at incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online, while preserving the core of Section 230’s immunity for defamation. a. Bad Samaritan Carve-Out. First, the Department proposes denying Section 230 immunity to truly bad actors.…

> It's approachable, and doesn't fall into the interpretation biases of the reporter. I agree with this, but don't forget that interpretation biases will still come into play as the law is enforced — the biases of police, lawyers and judges. So it still makes sense to read others' interpretations of what this might mean in practice.

I think this is a systemic issue on hackernews. People forgetting reality exists, and always pointing at the rules and acting as if they're infallible. You'd think /hackers/ would understand that rules are for show.

I've seen this regarding serious legislation like this or even something as mundane as Apple's app store "guidelines".

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#123

Post by [deleted] »

ROARosen wrote: post #90
saurik wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it truly can't identify activity then does it need Section 230 in the first place? The immunity granted by Section 230 is for people who want the ability to moderate content, and if you are merely a dumb pass-through of a bunch of encrypted information you aren't using it as you are more of a common carrier, right?

Exactly. They are also basically saying you don't need to moderate most illicit activity (if it's an unmoderated format) but you essentially can't operate such a platform in a form where it is "unmoderateable"/untraceable because you should be liable for any unlawful content that goes up, and for the the fact that you facilitated it.

[deleted]

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#124

Post by danso »

deadmik3 wrote: post #82
kube-system wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same is 100% true about religion. 1A does not give you protection from religious discrimination among persons and corporations. It is the Civil Rights Act that does.

Don't be semantic, my point is why isn't speech codified at the same level? Clearly at some point someone said "freedom of religion should mean protection from persons and corporations", why can't we say the same about speech?

What do you mean “why isn’t speech codified at the same level”? You mean, why haven’t legislators made a law that protects free speech against discrimination by employers and businesses, in the same way the Civil Rights Act does for religion?

I mean, what other answer is there than what’s implied by that very question: it’s because “legislators haven’t made a law”.

Now you can believe all you want that there’s been a centuries-old conspiracy by legislators to not ever draw up and approve this kind of law. But maybe you should consider that the other things mentioned in the 1st amendment, such as freedom of press, lobbying, and assembly, also aren’t “codified at the same level” as religious protections. And maybe you’ll realize that there are obvious differences in how religion is perceived to be different than the 4 other things protected by the 1A.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#125

Post by treis »

saurik wrote: post #98
treis wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law provides them immunity from civil suits. Apple as a provider can say they comply with section 230 and avoid any legal liability from people that may be harmed by their actions. In other words, you can't sue Apple because someone used iCloud to distribute child porn of you. The essential bargain struck for 230 was that providers get immunity in exchange for policing their system and helping law enforcement. Ap…

Ok, so I was under the impression that if you are say, a telephone network, that people can't sue you for stuff people do during phone calls, under the premise that the phone company doesn't moderate phone calls; and my understanding of the "bargain struck" is then that online web forums felt that centralized moderation was absolutely critical to spam prevention and search/discovery services (I disagree on the practi…

They may or may not. A victim of child pornography can argue that Apple is liable because they provide a secure platform to distribute the images. Or maybe a victim of a crime might sue because Apple refused to help. Section 230 prevented those types of lawsuits. Without it, who knows?

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#127

Post by stale2002 »

Waterluvian wrote: post #22
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.

1A protects you from the government. It has no relevance to free speech among persons and corporations.

The 1st amendment may only protect us from the government, but there is nothing stopping us from taking away immunity from "platforms" that are actually acting as publishers.

If a platform wants the liability protections for being a platform, then we can force them to not act like a publisher, or we can take away those platform protections.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#129

Post by joshuamorton »

anonHacker2 wrote: post #115
joshuamorton wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oof. That's a good source. Section 5c is particularly problematic. It disallows shadow-bans if I'm reading correctly. Section f9 is...suspicious. Section d4 seems painful for small providers. You lose good samaritan status if there isn't a good way to contact you. Section c2A is the important one. It basically means that a site cannot remove content unless it is objectively obscene or extreme. Section g5A suggests th…

Why do you say "clearly you can moderate based on your ToS"? I don't see anything here would permit the ToS to have moderation criteria such as "off-topic" while retaining the safe harbor. Section c1b is what leads to the conclusion that only the criteria in c2a are allowed, and section c1b doesn't mention "good faith" at all. Furthermore, for many sites such as Hacker News which define their topical focus broadly, "…

You're right, I'm making the assumption that the law isn't completely nonsense and banning any form of moderation whatsoever.

I could be wrong.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#130

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

tstrimple wrote: post #89
DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Where is this wealth of principled conservatives people keep pretending exist, but are no where to be seen in politics or political discussions? Like it or not, Republicans are the "conservative" party and around 95% of them support Trump and the vast majority of them consider themselves to be conservatives. Attempts from conservatives to distance themselves from the Republican party just reek of No true Scotsman.

> Like it or not, Republicans are the "conservative" party and around 95% of them support Trump and the vast majority of them consider themselves to be conservatives.

I apologize but I may be missing your point.

In the GP, I was suggesting that the term "conservative" is being used in competing ways by different groups, and we should be clear on that.

Are you saying that it's not worth making such a distinction, because the vast, vast majority of the public use the term "conservative" to mean "whatever the Republican party's platform is"?

Post reply on HN