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

131–140 of 261 posts

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

#131

Post by stale2002 »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #124
stale2002 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would the rules that govern the phone network make sense to apply to Wikipedia? Because it is a platform? I don't see a problem with enforcing neutrality on platforms, in the same way that I don't see a problem with enforcing it on my phone company, or my ISP. > Do you think HN would be a better place I think the old school reddit model is a reasonable goal to aim for for these types of platforms. (yes reddit h…

>EX: if a user doesn't want to see NSFW stuff, or trolling, or "misinformation", or any other offensive content, then there could be general categories, that describe those things, and the user can have that as a setting to not see that stuff. Let me go out on a limb here and say that no-one is going onto Facebook looking to find misinformation. They may be looking for stories that appeal to their prejudices and be w…

> But no-one is going to tick the box

Completely disagree. I would absolutely tick that box, as would many other people, specifically because we don't necessarily automatically trust whatever authority is "deciding" what is misinformation or not.

Instead, I would prefer to research an issue, by looking at multiple sides, and make a judgement, as opposed to having some minister of truth controlling what I am or am not allowed to read.

> is being applied and the biases at play there.

But the point is, that if you don't trust a certain group or source's opinion on what "misinformation" is, then you could choose a different authority on that.

IE, the tags for what is or is not "misinformation", would be community controlled, and you could pick which community or group to use as the "source" for this tag.

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

#132

Post by Jtsummers »

juniper_strong wrote: post #119
JoshTriplett wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world you propose gives more power to large site operators, not less, because they're the only ones that could possibly afford the requisite moderation resources. The world you propose does not have functional real-time public communication, because nobody could risk the liability of allowing the posting of content they haven't checked yet. The world you propose is one in which nobody could take the risk of runni…

>> The world you propose gives more power to large site operators, not less, because they're the only ones that could possibly afford the requisite moderation resources Not true, someone running a small blog can read every single comment that gets submitted. Twitter can't. >> The world you propose does not have functional real-time public communication, because nobody could risk the liability of allowing the posting…

> An internet where 3 weeks out from an election, the major providers of information ban information that hurts their political candidate is not a functional internet, it's an Orwellian dystopia.

Or it's a sign that Twitter and FB shouldn't be "major providers of information".

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

#133

Post by X-Istence »

verroq wrote: post #128
eli wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand what outcome you are seeking here. Clearly social media companies can’t prescreen every piece of content so either you want them to all go out of business or you want to forbid them from moderating even to delete spam. There are already forums with “zero” moderation and there’s a reason all discussion hasn’t migrated there.

That is a false dichotomy, they can clearly moderate without a political bias on what they claim to be a public utility. Yes I am claiming a site such as Twitter, that provides a public forum that anyone can join, has a moral duty to act like a public utility.

If I were a spammer I would very much not appreciate the notion that you will allow them to remove my content, but not your "political content".

Why is your content okay, but mine isn't?

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

#134

Post by Analemma_ »

verroq wrote: post #128
eli wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand what outcome you are seeking here. Clearly social media companies can’t prescreen every piece of content so either you want them to all go out of business or you want to forbid them from moderating even to delete spam. There are already forums with “zero” moderation and there’s a reason all discussion hasn’t migrated there.

That is a false dichotomy, they can clearly moderate without a political bias on what they claim to be a public utility. Yes I am claiming a site such as Twitter, that provides a public forum that anyone can join, has a moral duty to act like a public utility.

Who decides what is moderating "without political bias"? You? What if I don't like your decision?

Seems like a lot of the people decrying the behavior of the social media sites here are just asking for a censorship regime controlled by them instead of the site itself. Which we already have a mechanism for: go found your own.

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

#135

Post by juniper_strong »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #129
juniper_strong wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The world you propose gives more power to large site operators, not less, because they're the only ones that could possibly afford the requisite moderation resources Not true, someone running a small blog can read every single comment that gets submitted. Twitter can't. >> The world you propose does not have functional real-time public communication, because nobody could risk the liability of allowing the posting…

> Not true, someone running a small blog can read every single comment that gets submitted. But they then have to choose between allowing every racial epithet, porn link and scam, and risking a lawsuit because a commenter says something that’s construed as defamatory. > Not true, even pre-internet the world had functional real-time public communication. We called them telephones. Telephones are not public communicati…

>> But they then have to choose...

Yes, that's correct. They have to choose what content to allow. That's called being a publisher.

>> Telephones are not public communication

I'm guessing that you are too young to have heard of party lines.

But yes, telephones were public communication.

Wishing the president would die of COVID would obviously be allowed under a platform scenario, what law do you think it breaks where a content provider wouldn't publish a wish that the president of the US dies of a disease?

Also, I don't think you know what the term agitprop means.

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

#136

Post by paulgb »

Jtsummers wrote: post #132
juniper_strong wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The world you propose gives more power to large site operators, not less, because they're the only ones that could possibly afford the requisite moderation resources Not true, someone running a small blog can read every single comment that gets submitted. Twitter can't. >> The world you propose does not have functional real-time public communication, because nobody could risk the liability of allowing the posting…

> An internet where 3 weeks out from an election, the major providers of information ban information that hurts their political candidate is not a functional internet, it's an Orwellian dystopia. Or it's a sign that Twitter and FB shouldn't be "major providers of information".

> Or it's a sign that Twitter and FB shouldn't be "major providers of information".

Yeah, it really does seem some times like what Section 230 abolitionists really want is better accomplished through antitrust law. Trying to use liability for unrelated torts as a lever to force sites not to moderate is a very indirect and messy way to get back at the major platforms while creating a lot of collateral damage for smaller sites.

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

#137

Post by morpheuskafka »

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…

So a forum like HN cannot even have rules that a discussion has to be on topic/within the scope of the site? Wikipedia cannot have notability and credibility policies (I guess that is an edge case since it is other editors actually doing the removing, but according to community consensus guidelines)? A forum for a marginalized group needs to allow hate speech against them, so long as its not illegal? All the while they are not only putting up with the unwanted content, but paying out of their own pocket to host it?

What you are saying about platforms should apply to utilities (ISPs, possible PaaS like AWS), which is where net neutrality comes in. ISPs shouldn't block stuff they or the government doesn't like, slow it down, or otherwise interfere with traffic.

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

#138

Post by the8472 »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #126
the8472 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like the sites would continue to exist exactly as they did before only with a different coat of paint. The platformization would likely impact business model - who pays the platform? who makes deals with advertises? do publisher vs. platform rules also apply to the influence that advertisers have on a site? - and changes in moderation tooling provided as part of the platform. It would also separate the finan…

> It's not like the sites would continue to exist exactly as they did before only with a different coat of paint. Sure, but that’s orthogonal. Let’s say for the sake of argument that all those things came true — business models changed, financial interests separated, etc — but from the users’ point of view, everything works exactly as it does today. Success? > I think the actual escape hatch would be enabling users t…

> Let’s say for the sake of argument that all those things came true — business models changed, financial interests separated, etc — but from the users’ point of view, everything works exactly as it does today. Success?

That is a logically inconsistent outcome so I would expect nasal demons. But yes, it's probably a success because it means the social networks have less of an interest to and a legal reason not to influence content (maximizing engagement, removing content that harms their brand, conforming to the advertisers overton window, etc.).

> This exists today — shared block lists, etc — and it’s insufficient.

I agree that it's insufficient, because it's not first-party tooling that's designed to scale as well as the rest of the network. You can't propagate them in realtime, delegate moderation to trusted peers and so on.

> The problem with carving out exceptions to your ban on moderation is that it moves your complaint from “all censorship is bad” to “censorship of speech I don’t like is bad”.

That smells like a bogus argument to me, akin to complaining that net neutrality will make DoS prevention impossible. Aspects of spam are things being unsolicited and in bulk. But how much you need to do about it in the first place also depends on communication platform is structured in the first place. Do you see any unsolicited content without prompting for it or do there have to be some network edges between you and the spammer? If the latter, sever them, if enough people do that then the tree will fall in the forest and make no sound.

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

#139

Post by morpheuskafka »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #10

Twitter was asking for this to happen especially with there move today https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24789379

If they didn't do these things, then when Biden wins the election, the Democrats will be calling for them to "get their act together" and calling them to Congress for "spreading foreign propaganda/disinformation" or whatever.

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

#140

Post by paulgb »

X-Istence wrote: post #133
verroq wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a false dichotomy, they can clearly moderate without a political bias on what they claim to be a public utility. Yes I am claiming a site such as Twitter, that provides a public forum that anyone can join, has a moral duty to act like a public utility.

If I were a spammer I would very much not appreciate the notion that you will allow them to remove my content, but not your "political content". Why is your content okay, but mine isn't?

Just incorporate political messages into your spam.

(I kid, but I think it gets at the biggest flaw in reasoning of people who think there is an objective distinction between political speech and spam.)

Post reply on HN