271–280 of 392 posts
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?
Wouldn’t it be better to keep the existing 230 for companies with less than, say, 100 million users? And remove 230 protection altogether for companies with more than 100 million users? This would let the startup ecosystem flourish. It would also seriously hamstrung large companies. Would this be a bad thing, though?
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. ;)
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.…
Holy shit I did not expect this government to get something so nuanced and difficult so perfectly right.
Also clarification on unlawful and promotes terrorism language is a nice touch.
Kudos.
Thanks for the write up btw!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enlight us. For example, calling for the murders of specific people based on their political views or races don’t fall under the first. And social medias allow the spread of some of these messages with no consequences at the moment.
I'm not here to educate you.
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.
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.
I would disagree. I feel like programmers see logical contradictions or loop holes in laws and think that if they make the argument in court, the court will segfault and they will go free.
In reality, courts use more inductive reasoning than computers, and aren't as easily tricked.
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.
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…
Wouldn’t it be better to keep the existing 230 for companies with less than, say, 100 million users? And remove 230 protection altogether for companies with more than 100 million users? This would let the startup ecosystem flourish. It would also seriously hamstrung large companies. Would this be a bad thing, though?
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…
Further, any data about users could potentially uncover illicit activity, meaning a provider could essentially be required to track everything possible in order to avoid ignoring potential illicit content.
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…