Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
31–40 of 261 posts
Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
#32I 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…
I doubt YC would hire a full-time staff of moderators to vet every single post. Since we remove things for being off-topic or overly mean, the only possible conclusion is that HN would shut down because they do not want to bear liability for the posts they leave up.
The Internet as we know it would not exist without S230. Please read this[0] for a primer.
[0]: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
#33I 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…
Example: I want to set up a forum where people can discuss a specific topic. Such as the Arch Linux forum, or ones for vehicles (https://www.ninja400riders.com/, https://www.civicx.com/forum/). I am clearly not a publisher; I do produce content and do not want to produce content. So I am a platform.
Am I no longer allowed to decide what is acceptable on my platform? Even if I am running a forum about the Ninja 400 motorcycle, I now have to allow people to post about their Toyota Corolla or about how vaccines cause autism or the earth is flat? What about if I want to moderate the forum to keep discussion on topic and I need to delete trolling or spam, or lock/delete threads that devolve into political fighting among forum members?
You can't have platforms without moderation.
Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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
From a quick Google search: Canada has a National Public Alerting System (NPAS) which provides emergency management organizations across the country with the capability to rapidly warn the public of imminent or unfolding hazards to life. Public alerts are issued through radio, cable and satellite television and on compatible wireless devices
Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
#35I 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…
Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
#36Putting 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.
If you took the time to lets say read something as large as the Affordable Care Act you would see how little of the rules of implementation were in the bill. I generally look at this as the legislature abdicating its authority. The excuse is that its actually delegation to experts that actually have to enforce the rules.
This is why it is so important to read the Federal Register and push the folks in the Senate and House to specify rules on important bills to give the executive branch as little wiggle room as possible (this advice should apply to all parties).
Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
#37I 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…
This does not work. Example: I want to set up a forum where people can discuss a specific topic. Such as the Arch Linux forum, or ones for vehicles ( https://www.ninja400riders.com/ , https://www.civicx.com/forum/ ). I am clearly not a publisher; I do produce content and do not want to produce content. So I am a platform. Am I no longer allowed to decide what is acceptable on my platform? Even if I am running a forum…
Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
#38I 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…
It started with simply getting your platform/publisher license(so they can make you take down illegal content, save the kids), now Turkey dictates your content depending on your internet business.
Just few days ago Spotify was forced to get a license and establish a contact(probably because of the podcasts, will see), recently Netflix was forced to cancel a tv show because of a LGBT character, remove other shows and so on. They are trying to get their grip on Youtube to regulate it like a TV. Booking.com & Paypal are gone since years due to licensing.
As soon as you have your definitions somebody will have to make sure that you are acting accordingly, so rules for the publishers and licensing For the platforms to control the publishers will follow.
With the everything happening, that’s the feature for everyone and let me tell you, it’s not fun.
Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
#39I 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…
HackerNews could not exist in your proposed world. I doubt YC would hire a full-time staff of moderators to vet every single post. Since we remove things for being off-topic or overly mean, the only possible conclusion is that HN would shut down because they do not want to bear liability for the posts they leave up. The Internet as we know it would not exist without S230. Please read this[0] for a primer. [0]: https:…
Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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
It would be nice to tap into the Amber or Silver (old folks in danger) alert system.