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

61–70 of 261 posts

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

#61

Post by rayiner »

clusterfish wrote: post #16
mindslight wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the existing end runs are generally for things that the Executive already has administrative control over, refuses to abide by restrictions/oversight, and suffers no repercussions - similar to how none of Trump's personal crimes are being prosecuted while he's president. What are the possible results here? Finding sympathetic (ie corrupt) courts that will straight up ignore what the law says and defer to the exec…

Why not? "Sympathetic" courts are explicitly Trump's strategy to stay in power by validating vote suppression and even allowing states to not count all the votes. And you think some puny section is exempt from such bullshit? We have a new standard for how much such technicalities as separation of power matter in America, better get used to it. It's not like Democrats will fix all that even if they sweep the election,…

Democrats invented obliterating separation of powers, and then bludgeoned the Supreme Court into accepting it through court packing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.L.A._Schechter_Poultry_Corp....

> This traditional reading of the Commerce Clause was later disavowed by the Court, which after threats from Roosevelt began to read congressional power more expansively in this area, in cases such as NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.[8] However, more recent cases such as United States v. Lopez[9] perhaps signal a growing inclination in the Court to once again affirm limits on its scope. In a unanimous 2011 decision, Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court cited Schechter as a precedent.[10]

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

#62

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

dexen wrote: post #56
akersten wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:…

>HackerNews could not exist in your proposed world Provably, definitively wrong. 1. HN relies on the "platform" choice to avoid responsibility for 3rd party posts. HN also relies on operators like dang moderating at the server side. 2. The proposed model would prevent operators moderating at the server side, when the "platform" model was selected. 3. Historically, Usenet had workflow, content, and userbase similar to…

w.r.t. your #4: Usenet also had epic flamewars as users failed to self-moderate and groups which suffered particularly from this were very hostile to new users.

w.r.t. your #5: how does 'participation in some groups is subject to moderation, but participation is optional' fit with the platform/publisher dichotomy?

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

#63

Post by blhack »

jellicle wrote: post #58
blhack wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly what section 230 already does. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Whats being talked about here is stripping the assumption that twitter is acting in good faith, and therefore removing the protection they get from this section.

So much confusion about this. What the prior commenter describes is exactly the OPPOSITE of what section 230 does. Under current law, companies are free to - specifically encouraged to - moderate and delete content as much as they want, while they are also immunized from being treated as the publisher of that content and immunized from any liability for that moderation and deletion of content.

Section 230 is outlining a way in which an internet service can be exempted from liability. What part of this is causing you to read it another way?

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

#64

Post by hyper0perator »

mrtksn wrote: post #38
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…

That’s the Turkish model. A pioneer in censorship and totalitarian media control, it evolved in licensing and controlling everything. 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 be…

Disagree. Newspapers and ISP follow under this regulation. Social media networks have been able to skirt the issue. If newspapers can get sued for their content and the phone company can't, it only makes sense that this applies to social media companies are held to the same liabilities or protections.

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

#65

Post by khuey »

trident1000 wrote: post #31
Niksko wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's purely semantics, and everyone knows it.

What semantics? They were granted immunity with regulation and that regulation/immunity can be taken away.

Repealing the First Amendment is also "deregulation" by this standard.

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

#66

Post by juniper_strong »

khuey wrote: post #57
juniper_strong wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> You can't have platforms without moderation The cell phone network is a platform and it has no moderation. If you want to decide what is acceptable content, you're not a platform, you're a publisher. A stated rationale for protecting internet platform providers was to provide true diversity of political discourse. It wasn't to make it easy to run a forum for Ninja 400 motorcycle fans. You want to moderate content,…

> A stated rationale for protecting internet platform providers was to provide true diversity of political discourse. Citation needed. The most prominent case that led to the passage of section 230 was the decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. which had nothing to do with politics.

The "Findings" passage of section 230 itself called out the internet as "a forum for a true diversity of political discourse".

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

#67

Post by JoshTriplett »

the8472 wrote: post #59
sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the GP post was specifically saying that if you're a "platform" you cannot moderate content. You are required to distribute anything users write on your "platform" that is not illegal (in the US?).

The platform operator can't. That's how common carriers work (telephone, your ISP etc.). But things running on that platform could. Basically look at reddit and perhaps take it up a notch. If the platform operator does not want to be associated with some of the stuff happening on their site then perhaps they should deemphasize their branding. It wouldn't be "reddit/watchpeopledie" just "watchpeopledie". I not sure ho…

> An alternative approach would be exemptions for non-profit sites.

Another alternative would be "leave this problem alone, it's working just fine". Site operators can and should have the ability to ban anyone or remove any content, for any reason or no reason, and doing so does not mean they should be liable for everything they might have missed. (In practice, "liable for everything they might have missed" is equivalent to "unable to operate" for anything but the most massive sites that could theoretically afford an army of moderators, and it'd have a chilling effect even there.)

Destroying the concept of moderation does not make the world better. The liability shield is the whole reason Section 230 exists: to make it possible to have enjoyable communities online, without incurring so much liability that you have to shut them all down for fear of getting prosecuted.

If you want unmoderated communities, they exist. Go use them. Stop trying to destroy the concept of moderated communities.(Removing the liability shield would be tantamount to destroying such communities.)

Some people want the audience of moderated communities, but they don't want the standards of those communities. There's a reason unmoderated communities have fewer (and different) users.

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

#68

Post by hyper0perator »

akersten wrote: post #32
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…

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:…

Disagree. Platforms are immune to liability of their users. HN could become a platform and abide regulations like the phone company.

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

#69

Post by juniper_strong »

jolmg wrote: post #60
juniper_strong wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> You can't have platforms without moderation The cell phone network is a platform and it has no moderation. If you want to decide what is acceptable content, you're not a platform, you're a publisher. A stated rationale for protecting internet platform providers was to provide true diversity of political discourse. It wasn't to make it easy to run a forum for Ninja 400 motorcycle fans. You want to moderate content,…

I think you both have a different idea of what a platform is. Given your idea of a platform, I think web forums are neither platform nor publishers, so where does that leave them? To be clear, it's not fair to classify them as publishers. Newspapers and magazines are not mediums of discussions like forums are, they're compilers of articles that people spend days to write and submit for approval. To use an offline met…

When they want the protections of section 230, they claim to be platforms, when they want to block content on a political basis, they act as publishers.

I think they should have to decide on which they one want to be, and I think platforms should have greater protection against liability than publishers.

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

#70

Post by newacct583 »

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…

> have no say in what stays on, or gets removed/hidden (except, again, illegal stuff).

That would eliminate HN, Reddit, basically anywhere with a moderated forum. How do you run a site like Ravelry (knitting/crafting site) with a rule like that?

Under your idea, the reddit would consist of "News Sites" and "4chan". (Actually even 4chan does some moderation).

There's no way that would be acceptable.

Post reply on HN