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

181–190 of 261 posts

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

#181

Post by root_axis »

75dvtwin wrote: post #174
eli wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pla…

Explicit partisan bias is legally protected speech. The conservatives you refer to have no problem with bias when it comes to the mediums they dominate (cable news, talk radio), but when it comes to the wide open internet they now want to bring back the fairness doctrine, as if it's even possible to establish consistent standards for the political composition of a given post on the internet.

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

#182

Post by jakelazaroff »

75dvtwin wrote: post #174
eli wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pla…

That is not how Section 230 works. It has nothing to do with “neutrality” — it simply shields platforms from liability for legal content created by third parties.

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

#183

Post by gizmo385 »

zarkov99 wrote: post #39
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:…

Different rules apply with scale. HN is fine doing whatever it does but global monopolies require special handling.

Where does your cutoff apply? At what point are there "too many users"? How would you prevent something like that from being a completely arbitrary platform killer?

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

#184

Post by jakelazaroff »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #178
paulgb wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a nightmare scenario. Take down a platform by flooding it with ambiguously political spam and then bring lawsuits until a judge rules censorship.

Color me unsurprised that the end game of the nominally pro–free speech crowd is letting the government determine what legal speech should be censored.

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

#185

Post by 75dvtwin »

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.

You are right. We must not have individual-editorial, or crowdsorced-editorial social networks, treated as 'neutral platforms' when it comes to political or legal content -- basically anything that directly affects political candidates in the country(s) where HN has its main offices.

It is like having a for-profit business hiding under a non-profit tax umbrella.

If HN cannot figure out now to avoid editoralization of polical opinions (either by crowdsource or moderators), then do not allow political content. If HN wants to allow political content, and wants to allow the edtorialization function -- then do not hide behind 'neutral platform'.

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

#186

Post by nitrogen »

guscost wrote: post #162
morpheuskafka wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically, utilities/public services are things that have a natural monopoly, which absolutely applies to ISP/other wireline telcoms (city franchise licenses), mobile cell service (limited competition due to spectrum auctions and the need for enough nationwide spectrum to be accumulated to launch a viable service), water, sewer, power, gas, etc. It might apply to things like undersea cables, although there isn't r…

You could technically set up a mesh network and bypass the ISP too. I don’t think that argument is aging well, since it depends on some essential distinction between “telephone wire” type infrastructure and “server farm” or “installed base” type infrastructure. Why should we assume that a global content management and delivery network, broadcasting 500 million messages every day, is trivially replaceable? The fact is…

The fact is nothing has even come close to replacing it.

Indeed, it seems that just as there are natural monopolies over physically exclusive infrastructure like roads and cables, there are natural monopolies over network effects and attention/mindshare.

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

#187

Post by 75dvtwin »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #182
75dvtwin wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pla…

That is not how Section 230 works. It has nothing to do with “neutrality” — it simply shields platforms from liability for legal content created by third parties.

a platform, assumes 'neutrality'. If it is not neutral, it is not a platform.

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

#188

Post by 75dvtwin »

root_axis wrote: post #181
75dvtwin wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pla…

Explicit partisan bias is legally protected speech. The conservatives you refer to have no problem with bias when it comes to the mediums they dominate (cable news, talk radio), but when it comes to the wide open internet they now want to bring back the fairness doctrine, as if it's even possible to establish consistent standards for the political composition of a given post on the internet.

Of course it is.

So is a 'for-profit business' is a perfectly fine thing. But having a for-profit business using tax code for a non-profit charity -- would be criminal.

So why does 230 or other shields apply to Twitter or HN or FB?

My point I think more that a social networking company can apply crowdsourced or individual editorialization to political speech. And that application can also be biased, selective and therefore unfair.

It is ok that these companies might do that, but not OK to hide under shields meant for the companies that do not do that (like ISPs)

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

#189

Post by argomo »

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…

Is the following statement legal or illegal? "Man, nothing ends the day like a nice cold beer."

Clearly, that's legal. But if I'm running a platform, I should be able to hide/downrank/shadowban/censor it based on what sort of community I'm trying to build. In a kid-oriented venue, it's inappropriate. In a recovering alcoholics group it's harmful/malicious. In a tech forum, it's low value.

If you went to a school, an AA meeting, or a tech conference and talked about beer overbearingly, you'd be asked to leave the venue, and that would be their right.

As onerous as it is to have legitimate, authentic speech banned from a popular platform, the alternative of allowing all speech effectively creates a worthless noise chamber dominated by bad actors.

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

#190

Post by jakelazaroff »

75dvtwin wrote: post #187
jakelazaroff wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not how Section 230 works. It has nothing to do with “neutrality” — it simply shields platforms from liability for legal content created by third parties.

a platform, assumes 'neutrality'. If it is not neutral, it is not a platform.

That is neither the letter nor the spirit of the law. Section 230 shields “website operators” (since “platform” seems to be a loaded word) from liability for third-party content, even if they use discretion in moderating that content. There is no requirement of “neutrality”.
Post reply on HN