Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 261 posts

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#21

Post by ajsnigrutin »

I think that every company should decide if they're a "publisher" or a "platform".

If you're a platform, you're not responsible for what your users say (except directly illegal stuff, eg. child porn), and have no say in what stays on, or gets removed/hidden (except, again, illegal stuff).

If you're a publisher, you have a say what is posted on your site, and you carry full responsibility for all the onsite content.

Walking the line, and not wanting to take responsibility in some cases, but still deletin in other cases should be forbidden

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#22

Post by riffic »

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #17

I always find it disappointing (ironic?) that so much government communication is using private platforms - even if it's a "publisher"/newspaper. Even if I follow a mailing list or RSS feed I'm worried that some stuff might only be put on Twitter (especially with Police/LE activity where frequent updates are useful). Anyway, if you don't want to use Twitter (just to read an image of a real document)... The link to Aj…

cough, open web standards exist. The public sector should be required to adopt those immediately.

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#23

Post by post_below »

The most concerning thing about the tweet to me is the popular replies which support Pai's statement.

The media, and those of us who understand what Pai did to net neutrality, need to do a better job of communicating to the general public exactly what Pai is, and what he's there to do.

It would also be nice if people understood that section 230 protections allow the internet as we know it (not just the social media giants) to exist, but I'd settle for just the bit about Pai as a start.

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#24

Post by srtjstjsj »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #21

I think that every company should decide if they're a "publisher" or a "platform". If you're a platform, you're not responsible for what your users say (except directly illegal stuff, eg. child porn), and have no say in what stays on, or gets removed/hidden (except, again, illegal stuff). If you're a publisher, you have a say what is posted on your site, and you carry full responsibility for all the onsite content. W…

And how are platforms to be regulated? Do they allow anonymous posters? Who investigates and removes harmful content?

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#25

Post by pb7 »

smnrchrds wrote: post #19
KingMachiavelli wrote: post #17

I always find it disappointing (ironic?) that so much government communication is using private platforms - even if it's a "publisher"/newspaper. Even if I follow a mailing list or RSS feed I'm worried that some stuff might only be put on Twitter (especially with Police/LE activity where frequent updates are useful). Anyway, if you don't want to use Twitter (just to read an image of a real document)... The link to Aj…

There was mass shooter incident in Canada where the police used Twitter instead of emergency alert system to inform the public. Not many checked Twitter and got the memo. 22 people were killed at the hands of the shooter over the span of 13 hours. The number would have been significantly lower if they had used something more effective to inform the public. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nova_Scotia_attacks

>The number would have been significantly lower if they had used something more effective to inform the public.

Genuine question: what would that be exactly?

I agree that government shouldn't only use private sector communication channels as the primary channel.

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#26

Post by srtjstjsj »

mindslight wrote: post #3

Putting aside the larger issue of unaccountable platforms, what is the rationale for seeing this as anything more than some ineffectual campaign stunt? I don't see anything in S230 that delegates judgment to the FCC or any part of the executive branch. Basically Trump is claiming to perform the functions of the legislature and judiciary by decree. I wonder if this is the natural extension of the two political teams t…

Rulemaking is a standard function of the executive, to execute laws.

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#27

Post by pitaj »

pb7 wrote: post #25
smnrchrds wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was mass shooter incident in Canada where the police used Twitter instead of emergency alert system to inform the public. Not many checked Twitter and got the memo. 22 people were killed at the hands of the shooter over the span of 13 hours. The number would have been significantly lower if they had used something more effective to inform the public. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nova_Scotia_attacks

>The number would have been significantly lower if they had used something more effective to inform the public. Genuine question: what would that be exactly? I agree that government shouldn't only use private sector communication channels as the primary channel.

The same system as Amber alerts

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#28

Post by trident1000 »

stefan_ wrote: post #15

The champion for no regulation wants to regulate Twitter content.

Well removing section 230 would actually be deregulation and clarifying the interpretation is just enforcing whats already in place. 230 is legislation that protects tech companies currently. But they are acting as publishers and not platforms which has sparked action.

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#29

Post by Niksko »

trident1000 wrote: post #28
stefan_ wrote: post #15

The champion for no regulation wants to regulate Twitter content.

Well removing section 230 would actually be deregulation and clarifying the interpretation is just enforcing whats already in place. 230 is legislation that protects tech companies currently. But they are acting as publishers and not platforms which has sparked action.

That's purely semantics, and everyone knows it.

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#30

Post by trident1000 »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #24
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #21

I think that every company should decide if they're a "publisher" or a "platform". If you're a platform, you're not responsible for what your users say (except directly illegal stuff, eg. child porn), and have no say in what stays on, or gets removed/hidden (except, again, illegal stuff). If you're a publisher, you have a say what is posted on your site, and you carry full responsibility for all the onsite content. W…

And how are platforms to be regulated? Do they allow anonymous posters? Who investigates and removes harmful content?

Really this is patchwork on what needs to be a major regulatory overhaul.

Things that need to be addressed: no advertising to kids, mob control, fake accounts/social manipulation, free speech, transparent and auditable algorithms (screw their IP). Its not an easy task to achieve all of these and other goals but it needs to get done before society literally goes into a civil war.

Post reply on HN