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

191–200 of 261 posts

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

#191

Post by root_axis »

75dvtwin wrote: post #188
root_axis wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

> 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)

What shields? What kind of consequences do you imagine these sites should face for biased content moderation?

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

#192

Post by joshuamorton »

guscost wrote: post #168
joshuamorton wrote: post #163

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. Just the opposite. Companies unwillingness to intervene did so. Your opinion may be different, but it's nothing more, and suggesting we deny people their civil liberties based on your hunch is a dangerous line of thinking.

> deny people their civil liberties Are you saying that a special immunity from prosecution, granted to particular businesses, is a civil liberty? Or is this some kind of “freedom from being offended/misinformed” newspeak? I can’t think of another interpretation where what I am proposing does anything but preserve civil liberties.

> Are you saying that a special immunity from prosecution, granted to particular businesses, is a civil liberty?

I think that moderation is a consequence of the rights to speech and association. The ability to choose what content you host, and whose content you host, is a consequence of those rights.

Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, whomever, cannot violate your civil liberties. Only the government can do that. And when they pass laws that, de facto, restrict the ability of companies to associate and speak freely, they restrict those essential liberties.

Section 230 ensured civil liberties, both Facebook's, and yours, and mine. It means that anyone who wants to can create a website for broadcasting and discussion q-anon conspiracies theories, and they can ban anyone who chooses to disagree. But just the same, I can prevent those people from posting things on my website.

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

#193

Post by Meph504 »

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…

I'm having a hard time recalling any service that didn't have any content moderation, even on top of laws. The idea that content moderation makes you a publisher seems a bit silly to me.

If I have a platform for selling say automobiles, and people keep trying to sell kitchenware of something equally not off brand. Removing that content doesn't make you a publisher, it makes you a steward of the purpose of a platform.

The idea that moderation or cultivation of a platform, sudden makes you a "publisher" (which is frankly a term that shouldn't even be used in this case as it is too narrow for the web is) makes no sense.

This is, a bullshit threat to try and assert control over platforms that people interact on by the government. It isn't needed, and is likely to be harmful.

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

#194

Post by luckylion »

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…

HN, forums etc could still have all the rules they like, but they'd be publishers, not platforms, if I understand the GP correctly. Sounds reasonable enough, they aren't platforms that anyone can build on, they decide what goes on their site and what doesn't, even if they outsource part of that process to trusted users.

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

#195

Post by Meph504 »

nitrogen wrote: post #186
guscost wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the argument on monopoly is getting muddied, a monopoly isn't based on consumer's choosing a preferred service, but that they have no choice of provider.

Twitter is popular because people choose to use it, but they have the choice to use other services, or to attempt to create one, and compete with the current popular one, the difficulty of succeeding in the field doesn't change if it is a monopoly (unless of course the service provider can suppress any competitor from entering the market.)

Was MySpace a monopoly? it dominated social media at its peak, and not has been completely surpassed.

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

#196

Post by triceratops »

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…

> How about a comment someone leaves on their website?

IIUC they actually aren't responsible for that since they didn't write or publish it.

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

#197

Post by nitrogen »

Meph504 wrote: post #195
nitrogen wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the argument on monopoly is getting muddied, a monopoly isn't based on consumer's choosing a preferred service, but that they have no choice of provider. Twitter is popular because people choose to use it, but they have the choice to use other services, or to attempt to create one, and compete with the current popular one, the difficulty of succeeding in the field doesn't change if it is a monopoly (unless of…

There were other operating systems for PCs besides MS Windows in the 1990s, but Windows was still a monopoly.

Yes Myspace was a monopoly until Facebook opened to tbe public because it was the only way a bunch of people were willing to communicate for a while.

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

#198

Post by triceratops »

stale2002 wrote: post #99
eropple wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moderation on the client side doesn't work and never has. The Usenet killfile model was awful and was a big part of why huge swaths of it were an unnavigable mess for most users--because unless you wanted to expend the effort to build one you didn't have one and got the whole sewer pipe spraying straight into your face. And, oh boy, client-side moderation happens on Twitter, it works so well? Then why do female frien…

> Moderation on the client side doesn't work and never has. Are you claiming that the phone system does not work? Or that ISPs do not work? I think that they work pretty well, even though there really is not much top down moderation. > If they want "unmoderated" Why can't we consider the phone network, or ISPs, which are successful examples of the kind of unmoderated approach, that people are asking for?

Who said ISPs and the phones are "unmoderated"? Try running a server with significant traffic from your home. Or using blue boxes (? I don't know, whatever Woz used) to get free long-distance calls. They absolutely perform moderation, only at the network layer, so most people never see it.

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

#199

Post by triceratops »

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…

Even "common carriers" don't have to carry everything. ISPs will shut down your Internet if they find you running a server at home (not illegal, but against their ToS). The phone company will do the same thing if they find you used nefarious means to place long-distance calls. The common thread is that they act to prevent misuse of their network. You're arguing that social media companies should not be able to do the same.

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

#200

Post by triceratops »

juniper_strong wrote: post #69
jolmg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> when they want to block content on a political basis, they act as publishers.

You keep saying that as though it's a fact or a law when it's only an opinion. You should stop doing that.

Post reply on HN