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

171–180 of 261 posts

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

#171

Post by dlp211 »

zlsa wrote: post #154
dlp211 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To get notifications about an alert in a given area?

Considering that EAS's are handled at a hardware level and a public subscription API sounds ripe for a targeted DDoS attack for a pull model and bound to fail for a push scenario, I think radio, TV (OTA & cable), and Cell/Mobile are sufficient to reach the vast majority of people. Really only people who completely eschew technology would be left out since news orgs will be quick to update their web sites and forward the information into social media platforms. It just seems unnecessary.

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

#172

Post by davorak »

AnHonestComment wrote: post #96
the_pwner224 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It sounds like what you want is to publish an anthology of submitted content, all about Ninja 400s. The behavior you describe is simply automating an existing business practice: acting as an editor when deciding what’s included in an anthology. That’s fine — but it makes you a publisher, not a platform.

> The behavior you describe is simply automating an existing business practice: acting as an editor when deciding what’s included in an anthology.

Forums are typically about back and forth communication among community members that does not match the business practice of publishing an anthology or how anthologies typical work.

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

#173

Post by geofft »

guscost wrote: post #170
geofft wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might enjoy Elizabeth Warren's proposal about designating "platform utilities": https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big... But that aside (and I think she's using "utility" in a slightly different way), I think it would be a huge mistake to say that our approach is to regulate Twitter (and Facebook, and so forth) as is. That just cements their oligopoly: either your regulation calls out these…

Why not put a protocol in the public domain and let service providers implement it, like email? Is there something about broadcast communication that makes impartiality or neutrality impossible? Even if the broadcast protocol is based on follow/subscribe interactions? This is an interesting subject!

That's a great idea, and I think if private individuals (either businesses or open-source hackers or whoever) want to do that, they should!

But I think if private individuals (again, including business) don't want to do that, they shouldn't be compelled to! No law makes an email provider use SMTP; they do it because the industry / the market has settled on it.

(Imagine if nobody could use STARTTLS until it got approved by the government!)

Twitter is running a product, which includes broadcast communication as a component, yes, but also includes lots of other components: the idea that the product is structured as short messages with "retweets" and "likes" (distinct from Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit, email, etc.), limitations on message size, the idea of "Verified" and the choice of whom to verify, the discovery page and curation, showing "Who to follow" and curation of that, the data model of threading, the whole concept of hashtags, a "Home" view where the timeline goes sideways, images and video and audio and alt text and link previews, encrypting traffic to their site, not encrypting DMs, etc. And part of their product is determining what their rules are about what's on-topic and what's off-topic (whether you count it as spam or as harassment or as whatever else).

Absent a compelling reason otherwise, I don't think the government should be in charge of any of those decisions. I don't agree with all of those, and I certainly don't think it's impossible for them to make better-in-my-opinion decisions. But that's not for me to decide, nor is it for the FCC to decide.

Come to think of it, that's probably the underlying principle behind the US (and many other countries') political philosophy: the default is that choices are in the hands of individuals, including groups of individuals who make a company, and the government overriding that is an exceptional case that requires a strong justification. It's not the only model - monarchies and authoritarian states follow the approach that everything is in the hands of the ruler / the party, and liberty is granted as an exception when there's an argument for it.

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

#174

Post by 75dvtwin »

eli wrote: post #101
stale2002 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or you want to forbid them from moderating The goal would be to put significant, very large restictions on their ability to moderate. > There are already forums with “zero” moderation How about we look at other examples of communication platforms, that are working perfectly fine. Just take a look at the phone network, or ISPs. ISPs and phone networks, have very little "moderation" from the parent company, and yet s…

Because a discussion forum is not the same as a phone network. It just isn’t. Why would the rules that govern the phone network make sense to apply to Wikipedia? It’s weird to be having this argument on one of the very forums that benefits from 230. Do you think HN would be a better place if it were forbidden from moderating content? Were you here before dang came along? Can you imagine how much spam gets deleted bef…

If HN, or Twitter or FB, selectively apply their 'Terms of Service' in a way that reduces access to pro-conservative positions -- then they are not a neutral platform.

If they are not a neutral platform, they cannot claim shields of section 230.

It is like for a business that hides money in a Organization with a Charity status. We would have that business facing criminal charges in no time.

Why the execs of these platforms demand something different ?

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

#175

Post by 75dvtwin »

eli wrote: post #156
guscost wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the alternative is leading us toward actual violent war, I say “make HN choose between moderation and immunity too, if we must” without hesitation. “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and ma…

There are infinitely more alternatives that aren’t “gut 230” or “do nothing.” Why is this the starting point when it will affect so many sites that we all agree aren’t doing anything wrong. You want to propose a law that regulates Facebook let’s talk about that directly.

Well, I propose that FB and HN either apply ToS rules uniformly, or stop claiming a 'neutral platform' status.

Another analogy: if you are a for-profit business, do not claim Charity status. It is criminal if you do.

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

#176

Post by root_axis »

guscost wrote: post #142
morpheuskafka wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a utility though, utilities are primarily designated as such due to their extremely high infrastructure costs, twitter is just a popular website and nothing about the qualities of it make it similar to a utility.

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

#177

Post by pnw_hazor »

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?

If the spam is commercial speech it can be subjected to significant regulation as long as the regulation is viewpoint neutral the same as other commercial speech.

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

#178

Post by pnw_hazor »

paulgb wrote: post #140
X-Istence wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Courts are well practiced at sorting these kinds of things out. They would review the content, presentation, targeting, etc. of the emails to determine if it is commercial speech or political speech.

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

#179

Post by verroq »

Analemma_ wrote: post #134
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.

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.

We have courts for that. Currently these platforms cannot even be taken to court because they have immunity.

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

#180

Post by JoshTriplett »

the8472 wrote: post #127
JoshTriplett wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're assuming that there is no way to adapt to the new rules. If you're liable for user-posted content, you either need massive resources to review literally everything your users post (and a sufficient delay for such review to take place, and a massive insurance policy for the inevitable mistake), or you stop allowing user-posted content entirely. This proposal would make it nearly impossible to simultaneously h…

> The collective set of communication platforms that people use are, in concert, important, but it'd still be a stretch to say even that combination was "essential" Yes, I am concerned about the collective of privatized communication mediums. More and more private, personal communication runs over these platforms. Facebook is not just your timeline, it also is whatsapp. Twitter has DMs too. Those get filtered too. Th…

> If we can't do anything about the network effect then having a disinterested network should be preferable.

I don't want a disinterested communication platform. I want a highly interested communication platform that actually cares and maintains standards. I've tried both, and I find moderated platforms far more enjoyable. I'm not telling other people what kind of platform they should prefer; I'm stating that both such platforms should be available to those who prefer them. Freedom of association is valuable.

> let the userbase collectively handle the moderation

First, it's not at all obvious why user moderation would avoid the liability, and why that wouldn't put either the site or the user at risk under this new draconian liability scheme.

Second, user moderation like that requires some form of meta-moderation ("which users get to moderate"), and then you're back to the same problem.

Third, you're arguing that a site isn't allowed to pay people to moderate, and instead should rely on unpaid labor by volunteers to make the site more useful.

Fourth, you're effectively arguing that people who run websites (as opposed to those who use them) are not allowed to have standards. (And "not allowed without incurring liability" means "not allowed", in practical terms.) No. If I host a chat server, and someone comes on and starts chanting "butts butts butts butts" (saw this one happen) or "you should be gassed" (also saw this one happen) or "good ban all (slur)" (saw that one in a flagged comment on this website today) or "such-and-such group are mentally ill" (I've seen this one too), they're getting banned, whether I own the server or not, the same way they'd get kicked out of a party, or a cafe, or a business. Do you believe that, because I have standards and norms, I should not be allowed to run a server? Because if that causes me to incur liability for user's content, I cannot run such a server. Why is that a problem? Use someone else's server. I do, in fact, have freedom of association, and (modulo protected classes) believe very strongly in "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

Post reply on HN