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

181–190 of 392 posts

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#181

Post by mjh2539 »

buttersbrian wrote: post #63

Phrases like "has an objectively reasonable belief" give me chills and is RIPE for abuse. Also, modifying the language of Civil Liability to include good faith efforts for language that could be deemed "unlawful" is .... sneaky, and again, ripe for abuse.

The irony is that phrases like that are actually the least ripe for abuse because there is a ton of case law concerning them. I.e. they have a very specific meaning in regard to the law/statute/code. They're legalese, and legalese is your (lawyer's) friend.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#182

Post by reb »

shadowgovt wrote: post #170
reb wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hackers are specifically interested in exploring/exploiting the way human nature makes all machines vulnerable. IE taking a reasonably well-defined system of rules built with good intentions and using them for something entirely unintended. In this sense, law is similar to code, but far easier to exploit.

> In this sense, law is similar to code, but far easier to exploit. I see way too few computer engineer criminal masterminds to accept this hypothesis at face value. ;)

A better measuring stick might be lawyers and judges regularly applying the law in inconsistent ways.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#183

Post by gwright »

ashtonkem wrote: post #145

Yeah, that’s not suspicious at all. Also, the DOJ really should back off here. They’re an article II department, their job is enforcement and not legislation. If the law should change, that is emphatically congresses responsibility. They can recommend all they want, it should be valueless though.

> DOJ really should back off here

> They can recommend all they want

Isn't that what they are doing, recommending? Your statements seem contradictory.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#184

Post by gwright »

sailfast wrote: post #174

Having a legislative affairs office is one thing, but publishing draft legislation? That seems WAY out of line for an executive department. Why are my tax dollars being used for the executive to write laws?

Why are there so many people here surprised that executive departments participate in proposing legislation?

It seems like completely normal activity to me.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#185

Post by ardy42 »

sailfast wrote: post #174

Having a legislative affairs office is one thing, but publishing draft legislation? That seems WAY out of line for an executive department. Why are my tax dollars being used for the executive to write laws?

> Having a legislative affairs office is one thing, but publishing draft legislation? That seems WAY out of line for an executive department. Why are my tax dollars being used for the executive to write laws?

How common is that already? It seems kinda similar to the president preparing and proposing a budget to Congress.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#187

Post by Covzire »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #172
ROARosen wrote: post #77

I don't care for most of it except this: >> Carve-Out for Actors Who Purposefully Blind Themselves and Law Enforcement to Illicit Material >>...it makes little sense to apply “Good Samaritan” immunity to a provider that intentionally designs or operates its services in a way that impairs its ability to identify criminal activity occurring on (or through) its services, or to produce relevant information to government…

Did they just make tor illegal?

Only for sites that would want/need S230 protections right?

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#188

Post by freeone3000 »

donatj wrote: post #151
buhhh wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the first amendment isn't Article 19 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not sure where you're going with that.

The point is that speech hosted on "new frontiers" is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regardless to whether or not it's protected by the First Amendment.

Hey, wanna guess what international human rights declaration the US is not a signatory of?

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#189

Post by tdrp »

tangjurine wrote: post #119
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…

>Section 5c is particularly problematic. It disallows shadow-bans if I'm reading correctly. Can you explain more, I'm not really seeing it... Also how is disallowing shadowbanning problematic? I always never liked it.

As a user I don't like it but as an app/website provider, it significantly delays spammers, giving them the illusion that what they're doing is working so they should just maintain the status quo.

If instead you outright ban them, they adjust or learn about your anti-spam algorithms and just keep going.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#190

Post by jasonlotito »

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…

> The legislation asks them to take their finger off the scales, not put it on the other side.

This is fair. Though why conservatives would want this is a mystery. For example, Trump is allowed to post on Twitter and Facebook despite breaking their rules time and time again. Being consistent would mean removing a lot of conservatives voices, voices that have been protected by these big tech companies.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/sensitive-claims-bias...

Post reply on HN