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

191–200 of 392 posts

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#191

Post by disappearance »

gwright wrote: post #183
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.

Fairly sure the US DOJ had gone well beyond ‘recommending’ moves and actions outside of norms or status quo in recent months...

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#192

Post by filoleg »

mullingitover wrote: post #71

What's stopping web sites from getting around all this with some basic changes to their terms of use?

Terms of use are not legally binding in case they contain something that contradicts the existing law, just like any other contracts.

For example, imagine an employer wrote an employment contract signed by all employees that said something obviously against the law, like "if you get pregnant, we are letting you go". Even though employees signed this contract, that specific clause was against the law, so there is no way to legally enforce it. If the employer tries to legally enforce it, they will be in for a rude awakening.

Another, more realistic, example. Let's say you are about to get married and decide to get a pre-nup. Both you and your partner sign it. Let's say both signed a clause that says "any future earnings made during this marriage will get split 90/10 in case of the divorce, not as a 50/50 split". If divorce actually happens, this clause will be entirely useless, despite both parties willingly signing it. Both of the people who signed it will be able to claim total 50/50 on the split, even if they initially agreed to a different split.

tl;dr: the law overrides anything one can put into their terms of use or any other contract.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#193

Post by brandmeyer »

donatj wrote: post #135

The argument is always made that the First Amendment doesn't protect speech hosted on corporate servers. I don't agree, I believe if you're operating without individual content review, you're hosting speech in the same way a telephone company is, but sure, I'll let you have it.. Regardless, that's where Article 19 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights comes in. > "Everyone has the right to freedom of opin…

Treaties in the United States only have force through ratification. The USA ratified this declaration only with a suite of reservations that "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing" and they were quite clear that "the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."

So the UDHR doesn't mean anything in the US. Even if it did, the broad protections for private property rights could be interpreted to mean that UDHR allows internet companies to drop anything from their private property that they don't feel like hosting for any reason at all.

> (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. > (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#194

Post by deathgrips »

firebird84 wrote: post #178
analyte123 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone is selling drugs, distributing copyrighted material, publishing defamatory things, or participating in any other crime on your platform and you know about it, you lose 230 immunity for all content. Maybe this would encourage E2E encryption, but... If you read further, every single provider that allows user content also has to have a tipline for criminal activity and keep records on it.

Having a tipline isn't so bad on its own, but then the problem becomes: User leaves unverifiable tip, what do you do with it? It's not like you can break the encryption...

Turn it over to law enforcement. A single chat message is rarely a crime, but can be used to find further evidence of crime.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#195

Post by [deleted] »

djur wrote: post #166
tangjurine wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

What's the legitimate government interest in disallowing shadowbanning?

[deleted]

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#196

Post by mhh__ »

heyheyheysome wrote: post #66
analyte123 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

After hosting militia organization and planning pages, would Facebook be liable for the Kenosha shootings under this legislation?

Well, Facebook are "friends" (or at least friendly to) those currently in power so practically probably.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#197

Post by ideamotor »

yunohn wrote: post #168
shadowgovt wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'd think hackers would understand that rules are for show. I may be misinterpreting your wording here (my apologies if I am), but I'd assume the opposite. I'd think people who operate in a realm where text becomes action executed by a machine designed wholly around faithful, reliable execution of text fed to it would come to learn the reality-defining power of rules.

I understand and agree with what you mean, but that's what I'd associate with Engineers. I was thinking Hackers understand that the code running on the machine can be exploited.

Hackers don't read news on Hacker News. Programmers do.

So, quite ironically, you are doing precisely what you are talking about when you take the words "hacker news" too literally.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#198

Post by pico303 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #155
yunohn wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

> You'd think hackers would understand that rules are for show. I may be misinterpreting your wording here (my apologies if I am), but I'd assume the opposite. I'd think people who operate in a realm where text becomes action executed by a machine designed wholly around faithful, reliable execution of text fed to it would come to learn the reality-defining power of rules.

Laws aren’t like code. Laws are like specifications...everyone has their own interpretation.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#199

Post by mmazing »

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…

Does that impact VPN providers?

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#200

Post by yunohn »

ideamotor wrote: post #197
yunohn wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand and agree with what you mean, but that's what I'd associate with Engineers. I was thinking Hackers understand that the code running on the machine can be exploited.

Hackers don't read news on Hacker News. Programmers do. So, quite ironically, you are doing precisely what you are talking about when you take the words "hacker news" too literally.

Sure, I know. HN is about tech news, maybe with a startup bent. But, I thought what a lot of programmers would have in common were innovative or uncommon angles, "hacking" of a sort.

I don't think rulebook following coders are particularly interested in debating like this on HN.

Post reply on HN