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

371–380 of 392 posts

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#371

Post by squarefoot »

curt15 wrote: post #23
jagged-chisel wrote: post #4

> ... hold online platforms accountable both when they unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online. If these proposed changes are enacted, I await the catch-22 where an "online platform" is sued in relation to the same content; first where they "censored" something and then had to put it back online, and second as "knowingly facilitating criminal activity" because it's online.

What law separates "lawful" from "unlawful" censorship?

> What law separates "lawful" from "unlawful" censorship?

The law of the jungle?

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#372

Post by greatgib »

greatgib wrote: post #7

I think that the title is correct but it is not very descriptive of what it is about for people having a look at it. Tldr quote from it: "We therefore urge Congress to make these necessary reforms to Section 230 and begin to hold online platforms accountable both when they unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online.”

It's completely crazy, I don't get why my previous comment was so much down voted.

To me it does not make any sense at all... Did anyone understood it like if I was giving a pro or con opinion?

I tried just to clarify in a short text what it was about for people not being aware of what 'section 230' is. Also now there are a lot of longer comments, so that could be more explicit.

Would anyone have a logic explanation to share with me?

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#373

Post by ByteJockey »

leetcrew wrote: post #363
ByteJockey wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always heard aggression defined as roughly: Initiating or threatening any forceful action against an individual or their property Is your complaint that the boundaries of "threatening" are too squishy?

yes, "threatening" and even "forceful" are subject to interpretation. suppose you see me walking around town with a rifle. is that threatening? maybe not if you're comfortable with open carry, but what if I do it on the sidewalk in front of your house? is it a violation of NAP to not wear a mask during a pandemic? what if I've already tested positive for covid and am refusing to quarantine? or what if I know that I h…

That's fair. When it comes up, it's usually limited to explicit threats.

Basically if you don't flat out say "I'm going to do X", that's not really counted.

But I can see why it's confusing for an outsider.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#374

Post by nph5667 »

I think the bigger issue with the dominant social/publishing platforms is not a free speech, but their ability to ruin a business without ability of the business to appeal, go to court, sometimes even without a right to find the reason. They are increasingly becoming a marketplace and, as such, they have to be legally forced to keep it transparent and fair. Utility companies cannot turn your electricity off just because some clerk inside PG&E decided that you use this electricity in a way he personally does not like. YouTube, Facebook and Twitter do it many times a day.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#375

Post by ashtonkem »

gwright wrote: post #369
ashtonkem wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said “forbidden”, that’s obviously untenable. Even people I don’t like have the right to say thinks I don’t want them to say; I’m speaking of norms and social pressure. I’m saying that we should tell those who will wield the power to pound sand when it comes to what powers they should get. Ideally the president should not be proposing legislation, that is not their role in this democratic republic. One could…

It seems completely infeasible to me to think that Congress and its staff is capable of drafting reasonable legislation without considerable input from the executive agencies. I understand the general conflict of interest you are concerned about but that is why there are separate branches. The executive branch can only propose and/or respond to inquiries, they can't actually introduce legislation. (I'm just going to…

Congress is free to consult various other branches, but that is substantively different from the DOJ proposing legislation. Congress should be in the drivers seat, imho.

And yeah, the devolution of quasi-legislative ability to regulatory bodies is a serious ball of wax that I haven’t managed to formulate a coherent solution to.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#376

Post by sailfast »

gwright wrote: post #367
sailfast wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not normal to write draft legislation. It is normal to have a legislative affairs office that works with Congress on all sorts of things but to propose draft legislation is weird. Agencies typically try to avoid doing this as it could adversely impact their funding moving forward. Why fund an agency that already has enough money to fund a lobbying arm? It’s a norm more than a rule but it’s a thing in my experien…

This report suggests that this sort of thing is not uncommon but that it rarely takes the form of a complete bill, which is closer to your term "draft legislation". Redlining an existing statute with changes is what the DOJ published and is closer to what I was getting at when I said "participate in proposing legislation". https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/technical...

Thanks that’s a great paper. Much obliged.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#377

Post by sailfast »

gwright wrote: post #368
sailfast wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience this is not at all normal. Any more examples off-hand if agencies writing draft legislation? Not talking rulemaking, talking actual law. Would happily be proven wrong here but it’s something I have actively seen agencies avoid in the past, so I’m curious where you’ve seen this kind of overt draft legislation written.

See my response to your other comment above.

Thanks. Seems like I’m mistaken about this or my experience is not as common. Appreciate the links.

I’d be interested if they always came with a press release and public quotes / pressure - but maybe that’s in the ACU report. Haven’t gotten all the way through it yet.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#378

Post by gwright »

sailfast wrote: post #377
gwright wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my response to your other comment above.

Thanks. Seems like I’m mistaken about this or my experience is not as common. Appreciate the links. I’d be interested if they always came with a press release and public quotes / pressure - but maybe that’s in the ACU report. Haven’t gotten all the way through it yet.

That does seem a bit unusual but then again the amount of attention that social media (and media in general) is getting lately is basically off the charts.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#379

Post by aspaceman »

zerocrates wrote: post #267
aspaceman wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dea…

I thought we were referring to packing the federal courts. As judicial review is a power solely reserved for the Supreme Court, I don't think it applies to this discussion.

The phrase in question has a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_and_objective_stand...

And a BAR exam study page: https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/subjective-standard-of-reas...

You don't get to just change the meaning of such phrases on a whim. Supreme Court or not. You'd be re-interpeting hundreds of years of case law for the sake of extending a single decision, which is easier and more subtle to do in a myriad of ways.

It's like worrying a programmer is going to redefine the meaning of the word compiler or something.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#380

Post by dragonwriter »

aspaceman wrote: post #379
zerocrates wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 dea…

I thought we were referring to packing the federal courts. As judicial review is a power solely reserved for the Supreme Court, I don't think it applies to this discussion. The phrase in question has a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_and_objective_stand... And a BAR exam study page: https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/subjective-standard-of-reas... You don't get to just change the meaning of suc…

> As judicial review is a power solely reserved for the Supreme Court,

It is not. “Judicial review” is just applying the heirarchy of laws top-down from the federal Constitution, and every court in the US federal system does it. Orders striking down federal laws as violating the Constitution often originate from District or Circuit Courts. Supreme Court involvement is not necessary for judicial review.

Post reply on HN