DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation • Hacker News Board

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#201

Post by x86_64Ubuntu » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:28 PM UTC

yunohn wrote: post #121

jakelazaroff wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

People aren't forgetting reality exists, they are falling in love with how the rules will actually be enforced, but know that the only morally defensible position to take is as it's written.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#202

Post by mmazing » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:29 PM UTC

gwright wrote: post #184

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.

I guess that depends - is it a frequent occurrence, historically?

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#203

Post by x86_64Ubuntu » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:31 PM UTC

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...

Sounds like we are turning our entire website infrastructure into a 1984 monitoring system

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#204

Post by WiseWeasel » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:35 PM UTC

treis wrote: post #92

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?

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…

Except Apple doesn’t encrypt iCloud uploaded content with client-side-stored encryption keys. It has been and will continue to be subpeonable. Section 230 concerns internet services, not all technology.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#205

Post by x86_64Ubuntu » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:37 PM UTC

esoterica wrote: post #74

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.

> I think that’s fine to ask social medias to choose between being a publisher or a platform. Why should we force websites to choose between being a publisher and a completely unmoderated platform? Why do people keep parroting that line with zero justification as if it's self-evident? You are commenting right now on a website that is heavily moderated, a website that could not possibly exist if the admins faced perso…

When HN's demographic imagines such legislation, they are thinking about how racist views get quickly kicked off of other platforms, and they want those other platforms to suffer. You won't hear any of these proponents complain about someone getting banned on HN, because it's an environment where their line of thinking is dominant.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#206

Post by superflit » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:37 PM UTC

comex wrote: post #104

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, not put it on the other side. Yes. But the notion that tech companies are putting a "finger on the scales" in favor of liberals is the conservatives' perspective. Another perspective is that they're banning categories of speech, such as misinformation and hate speech, which just happen to be more prevalent on the conservative side.

"which just happen to be more prevalent on the conservative side."

Ahem... So when one side ask and say to burn things it is not "hate speech" it is "peaceful protesting".

But when one side says the same is "hate speech".

It was never about "hate speech".

But who is speaking.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#207

Post by WarOnPrivacy » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:37 PM UTC

annoyingnoob wrote: post #108

vorpalhex wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be a very regular reader of techdirt but it's become clear to me their quality has declined and they've been going for clickbait headlines full time since changing the monetization strategy. Masnick still makes some valid points but they're few and far inbetween, and the other site writers are generally not a beneficial read.

Techdirt has always been that way, you just started noticing. Mike is all about the clicks. Mike seems to never be wrong, according to himself. Mike will distance himself from his own words when convenient. Techdirt should be called The Daily Outrage.

I am impressed with how far off-base your analysis is. I mean, I'm struggling to frame the state of mind where someone might assemble those conclusions.

Techdirt's headlines reflect exactly what's in the article. Instead of click-baity, a reasonable person might call that accurate.

Mike Mansick's coverage of complex legal articles is extraordinarily good. He's one of a small number of journalists who make complex legal understandable without butchering or omitting relevant details.

As for the Daily Outrage, well, okay. Techdirt covers outrageous behavior. TDA is a little simplistic but it's not off base.

A relevant side note: I've been calling out biased reporting for 30 years. Not because it makes my bad team look bad but because addressing bad behavior unequally provides nurturing spaces for it to thrive. Techdirt is one of the few publications that consistently called out bad behavior by the Obama administration - sometimes it was the ONLY publication doing so.

I didn't want to see Obama vilified or lionized. I wanted corruption outed and problems fixed and I really don't give a damn who the PotUS is.

Feel free to respond here with other news publications that don't change their national coverage methods, depending on who's holding the White House.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#208

Post by tedtonks87 » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:38 PM UTC

MikeTheGreat wrote: post #93

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…

"objectively obscene or extreme" - is there a clear definition for obscenity? I feel like there was a famous quote from a judge on the SCOTUS to effect of "I'll know it when I see it", but law is not an area that I have expertise in.

I agree, based on legal precedent ("know it when i see it") seems it would be very challenging to enforce an objective definition of obscenity.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#209

Post by some_furry » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

deathgrips wrote: post #194

firebird84 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Turn what over to law enforcement? The ciphertext and timestamp?

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#210

Post by ummonk » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:49 PM UTC

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.…

This is pretty much in line with how I would want to reform section 230.