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

261–270 of 392 posts

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#261

Post by sprayk »

Spivak wrote: post #248
ryukafalz wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, this is the one section that I don’t want added. The “Bad Samaritan carve-out” seems to cover cases where the platform is aware of the content pretty well, and I’d support adding that. This is about making them liable even when they aren’t aware of it, which is problematic for any site that handles anything user-generated, especially if you don’t have an army of moderators like Facebook does.

> This is about making them liable even when they aren’t aware of it… There are two sides to this though. If you make a carve-out for ignorance you incentivize ignorance. I think the argument is that if you’re not able to moderate your user-generated content at the most basic levels like running image hashes against the CP database then you shouldn’t be hosting it.

> I think the argument is that if you’re not able to moderate your user-generated content at the most basic levels like running image hashes against the CP database then you shouldn’t be hosting it.

Then surely some minimum level of CP detection should be part of this section, right? If the requirements here are not defined well enough, then any company, from the smallest startup to a behemoth like FB, could be liable for some CP shared through the platform in a novel way that would have been impossible to detect.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#262

Post by Renaud »

Spivak wrote: post #248
ryukafalz wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, this is the one section that I don’t want added. The “Bad Samaritan carve-out” seems to cover cases where the platform is aware of the content pretty well, and I’d support adding that. This is about making them liable even when they aren’t aware of it, which is problematic for any site that handles anything user-generated, especially if you don’t have an army of moderators like Facebook does.

> This is about making them liable even when they aren’t aware of it… There are two sides to this though. If you make a carve-out for ignorance you incentivize ignorance. I think the argument is that if you’re not able to moderate your user-generated content at the most basic levels like running image hashes against the CP database then you shouldn’t be hosting it.

As you mentioned, there are ways to detect some pre-existing illegal content but having a notification mechanism in place can take care of the knowledge part.

Force providers to have a reporting system that feeds back a unique case code that can be quoted as evidence of knowledge. Then they have x days to investigate and respond.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#263

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

What ever happened to simple stuff like

- You go IPO, you lose 230 exemption. - Your revenues reach 2000x the avg US capita, lose 230 exemption. Done

This was always meants as a check on online players that had reached monopoly status via network effect.

All the ugly stuff (terrorism etc) can and should be dealt the same way NSA ATF FBI etc have been doing since the dawn of the internet. Sect230 should stay clear of that

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#264

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

mhh__ wrote: post #120
altcognito wrote: post #13

Almost guaranteed to be used to selectively prosecute.

Laws are always enforced by humans, so this is always true. What is different about these proposals is that they are explicitly prompted by partisan (and personal i.e. Trump) motives which, although it's true of other laws too, is supposed to be the quiet part not said out loud. The whole premise of investigating for "bias" is clearly designed to be abused - similar to HUAC asking you to prove that you aren't a commu…

What is partisan about antitrust action?

Dont we want an open market of ideas ?

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#265

Post by shard972 »

heavyset_go wrote: post #216
anonHacker2 wrote: post #105

This law would make it illegal to host discussion forums such as Hacker News. Subparagraph (c)1(B) says that the only safe harbor for removing content is (c)(2). (c)(2)(A) restricts the criteria that can be used to remove content to the following: "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, promoting terrorism or violent extremism, harassing, promoting self-harm, or unlawful". The current Hacker News Gui…

With such proposed laws on the books, I don't see how anyone would start a new company that does anything at all with user generated content, as the risk for significant criminal liability is just too high. Only billion dollar companies would be able to afford to curate and make sure not a single law was broken ever, at any time, by one of their users. Imagine having your home raided in the middle of the night becaus…

Maybe we can go back to the days of hosting our own content. It's not like we don't have the technology

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#266

Post by abvdasker »

kordlessagain wrote: post #88
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…

> Is this the end of online privacy as we know it? That would imply there was online privacy at some point, or at least that it was a thing that all users could reasonably understand and achieve. If users understood that Facebook's business model might eventually require what (in hind-sight) appeared to be multiple privacy violations, but continued to use the service anyway because they couldn't help themselves, they…

One thing this effort tells us indirectly but unambiguously is that federal law enforcement and surveillance does not have a technical solution for end-to-end encrypted services or Apple's device encryption. If they did, there would be no need to create new legal penalties (and make no mistake, the federal law enforcement and surveillance agencies are the real force behind this effort to defeat online privacy).

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#267

Post by zerocrates »

aspaceman wrote: post #246
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of imagination for how Republican court packing could flip that around is dire.

You couldn't pack courts to change the meaning of a phrase like this. It's not like I can come in as a new judge, say that I interpret these words a certain way, and plow my way forward. The wording has to be accepted within the technical jargon of the field. You know how we have words like compile, build, "binary", or executable? It's the same thing. Expanding the interpretation of the law is expanding the interpret…

> The wording has to be accepted within the technical jargon of the field.

Huh? If a majority Supreme Court decides a phrase "really" means X in a certain context, it means X for the rest of the courts. The "technical jargon of the field" notwithstanding. They're often the source of that jargon.

The Slaughter-House Cases famously by a 5-4 vote reduced the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment to a dead letter only 5 years after its enactment. A handful of years later it specifically held that despite the 14th Amendment, the First and Second Amendments didn't apply to the states. But then, despite no actual relevant change in the Constitution itself, the Bill of Rights began to be applied to the states by the Supreme Court in the 1900s, through the somewhat roundabout method of the Due Process Clause instead.

Or choose some other example, if you prefer. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard that has formed the basis of Fourth Amendment law for decades rests on the court's novel interpretation of the stubbornly unchanged words of the Fourth Amendment in the 1960s.

The Supreme Court wields huge power to interpret the law untethered to any pre-existing rule, if it so chooses.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#268

Post by BobbyJo »

ryukafalz wrote: post #243
cirno wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> b. Carve-Outs for Child Abuse, Terrorism, and Cyber-Stalking. Second, the Department proposes exempting from immunity specific categories of claims that address particularly egregious content, including (1) child exploitation and sexual abuse, (2) terrorism, and (3) cyber-stalking. These targeted carve-outs would halt the over-expansion of Section 230 immunity and enable victims to seek civil redress in causes of a…

Conversely, this is the one section that I don’t want added. The “Bad Samaritan carve-out” seems to cover cases where the platform is aware of the content pretty well, and I’d support adding that. This is about making them liable even when they aren’t aware of it, which is problematic for any site that handles anything user-generated, especially if you don’t have an army of moderators like Facebook does.

Maybe needing an army of moderators is just the cost of doing business when it comes to hosting user content. I'm weary of that change being made, but really, I don't see a viable alternative, or a good argument against it. If you can't moderate content at some scale, then maybe you just shouldn't host content at that scale.

I think there may be a light, or a deeper darkness, that comes out of this though. We may see a lot of investment in automation for catching this kind of content.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#269

Post by plazmatic »

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.…

Imagine thinking that reading a document from the DOJ on their own site meant you're free from bias.

The DOJ has their own bias you fools. They're literally operating as trumps lawyers at this point.

You people are so damn slow. It's kind of sad.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#270

Post by dannyw »

ummonk wrote: post #212
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…

It seems to be that under this reform to maintain Section 230 safe harbor either you would have clear and consistently enforced ToS or if not relying on a ToS you would be removing material that is objectively obscene or extreme.

This seems like a fantastic reform. It may lead to Twitter finally applying the same moderation standards to Trump, ie banning his account.
Post reply on HN