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

141–150 of 261 posts

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

#141

Post by Threeve303 »

eli wrote: post #95
hyper0perator wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Gutting Section 230 is exactly designed to make these companies less profitable.

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

#142

Post by guscost »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #137
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 th…

Is it time for Twitter to be considered a utility?

ISPs evolved from “online service providers” which themselves evolved from “bulletin board systems”, and if you consider an ISP to be a utility today, then there was a point where that kind of service became a utility.

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

#143

Post by the8472 »

paulgb wrote: post #136
Jtsummers wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 small…

What has twitter done that would even remotely fall under anti-trust laws?

On the other hand using communications regulation does sound kind of obvious when you use the telephone or previous net neutrality disputes as reference points. Although it is ironic that the current anti-NN FCC now wants to push for platform services in the name of neutrality.

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

#144

Post by sfkdjf9j3j »

the8472 wrote: post #138
jakelazaroff wrote: post #126

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. 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 inf…

The issue is that - as anyone involved in online community moderation will tell you - there will always be a group of users who try to push the boundaries and engineer the most plausible edge case situation that maximally violates the rule in spirit while following it by the letter.

If your position is "never remove anything ever", you circumvent this. But when your position becomes, "actually, you can delete only spam, but nothing else" then you're back in the exact same situation we are currently in - some things are removed by judgement call and not everyone is going to agree on every judgement. It completely removes the very core of the argument - that judgement calls should be unnecessary or not allowed.

If you're suggesting crowd sourcing moderation in a democratic fashion, I would contend this both isn't effective and also that by providing systems that facilitate this, companies would be implicitly affecting the "censorship" of their platform. After all, someone has to decide what the voting algorithm is, what the chance of being a spammer before you are blocked is, etc.

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

#145

Post by webmaven »

hyper0perator wrote: post #64
mrtksn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Okay, I'll bite. Should newspapers be liable (that is, able to be sued) for a letter to the editor they publish? How about a comment someone leaves on their website?

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

#146

Post by jakelazaroff »

juniper_strong wrote: post #135
jakelazaroff wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

If you're really advocating forcing individuals and small communities to choose between filtering spam and risking lawsuits, we'll have to agree to disagree. Hopefully the chilling effects that would have on speech are self-evident.

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

> But yes, telephones were public communication.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what party lines are… no they weren't. How would I listen to a conversation happening between two people outside of my local loop?

> 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?

This wasn't a hypothetical; it happened last week. Twitter announced it would suspend the accounts of people wishing the president would die, and the people who would go on to cry foul about the NY Post article were curiously quiet.

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

Yes I do.

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

#147

Post by happythomist »

webmaven wrote: post #145
hyper0perator wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Okay, I'll bite. Should newspapers be liable (that is, able to be sued) for a letter to the editor they publish? Ho…

> Should newspapers be liable (that is, able to be sued) for a letter to the editor they publish?

Why shouldn't they? If the letter is libelous, then they're responsible for distributing it to a larger audience.

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

#148

Post by dlp211 »

simlevesque wrote: post #82
dlp211 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, the Emergency Alert Systems have existed since at least WWII. 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

And they don't have any shape or form of public API which sucks.

Why would there be a public API for the Emergency Alert System?

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

#149

Post by juniper_strong »

paulgb wrote: post #136
Jtsummers wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 small…

>> Yeah, it really does seem some times like what Section 230 abolitionists really want is better accomplished through antitrust law

That's called false dichotomy.

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

#150

Post by eli »

Threeve303 wrote: post #141
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.

Gutting Section 230 is exactly designed to make these companies less profitable.

Great, I have issues with big tech and social networks in particular. Let’s outlaw bad behavior or talk about ways to put real oversight on their actions. I’m all for it. I bet a majority of Americans are too.

So let’s not mess with a law bedrock to the participatory part of the internet. Gutting 230 to get Facebook misunderstands the problem and will have horrible unintended consequences.

Post reply on HN