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

201–210 of 261 posts

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

#201

Post by bobthepanda »

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.

The major, major issue is not really the hosting, but the amplification mechanism (e.g. "More like X"). The social networks have basically used "algorithms" as an excuse to wash their hands of even basic moderation up until this point, and it's well documented that recommendations lead people into echo chamber rabbitholes.

The solution is very simple. Remove section 230 specifically for recommendations. Which IMO makes sense, people perceive "More like X" or more explicitly "You might also like X" as tacit endorsement.

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

#202

Post by DeonPenny »

What they did this week sealed their fate. Section 230 was supposed to make social networks public squares but that line is obviously being ignore especially by some people because they think censoring things they think are wrong is moral.

Which has to be one of the most arrogant things I have ever witnessed.

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

#203

Post by Meph504 »

nitrogen wrote: post #197
Meph504 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you might want to do some double checking on your history. Firstly Microsoft monopoly got thrown out because of unethical behavior of the judge (which is why there isn't two Microsoft entities today. The whole thing hinged on "Microsoft installed its browser by default which gave it an unfair advantage." To allow the DOJ to save face, Microsoft agreed to make it easier to install other browsers.

And My Space wasn't a monopoly, there was a parade of social networking sites of various popularity and success starting with bolt in the late 90s and most directly before MySpace was Friendster.

Compare these applications, to say power companies, or ISPs in much of the US. The difference is really clear.

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

#204

Post by stale2002 »

triceratops wrote: post #198
stale2002 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Who said ISPs and the phones are "unmoderated"?

ISPs have to follow common carrier laws.

If social media platforms were subject to these same common carrier laws, then that is good enough for me.

That is what I mean by unmoderated. I mean, that they are following things such as common carrier laws, which have very significant requirements.

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

#205

Post by Kbelicius »

mrtksn wrote: post #78
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.

Sure, the issue is that now it is technically possible To do much more. With the phone company it’s impractical to listen to every conversation and “eliminate the threats”, it is practical with the internet. EU wants upload filters(stop singing “happy birthday” to your friend, that needs lives), UK want porn and crypto control(no dirty talk on the phone, no secretive talks, must speak load and clear). Turkey wants to…

> EU wants upload filter

This is not true. In fact, the document you are thinking of explicitly states that its application shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation.

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

#206

Post by the_other »

bobthepanda wrote: post #201
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.

The major, major issue is not really the hosting, but the amplification mechanism (e.g. "More like X"). The social networks have basically used "algorithms" as an excuse to wash their hands of even basic moderation up until this point, and it's well documented that recommendations lead people into echo chamber rabbitholes. The solution is very simple. Remove section 230 specifically for recommendations. Which IMO mak…

> "algorithms" as an excuse to wash their hands of even basic moderation

The algorithms ARE moderation, of sorts.

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

#207

Post by athms »

DeonPenny wrote: post #202

What they did this week sealed their fate. Section 230 was supposed to make social networks public squares but that line is obviously being ignore especially by some people because they think censoring things they think are wrong is moral. Which has to be one of the most arrogant things I have ever witnessed.

>Section 230 was supposed to make social networks public squares

Wrong. There is nothing in the statute that implies neutrality.

Section 230 was to enable online platforms to engage in good-faith community moderation without fear of taking on undue liability for their users’ posts. Online platforms are within their First Amendment rights to moderate their online platforms however they like, and they’re additionally shielded by Section 230 for many types of liability for their users’ speech. It’s not one or the other. It’s both.

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

#208

Post by intended »

75dvtwin wrote: post #169
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…

It has to be treated as criminal negligence when a platform applies its 'Terms of Use' or rule of conduct, selectively. I think that will solve the problem. Today, HN or Twitter can, selectively, diminish visibility of pro-conservative content and posts, while not applying the same scrutiny to the other side. They can sit there and claim neutrality, ask for 'evidence' and so on. But really, they are the ones that sho…

True. From what I hear the conservatives are constantly given a pass because the platforms are too scared of exactly this scenario.

I’m surprised they found a reason to act like this when the conservatives are in power.

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

#209

Post by paulgb »

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.

The two problems with this approach:

1. Even if the courts always get it right, small sites are not going to want to want to hire a lawyer and go to court to defend someone else's speech. They will instead err on the side of caution (as many do now for DMCA violations), causing a chilling effect on speech.

2. In a system where whether a platform is liable for its content is ultimately decided by courts we cede a lot of power over speech to the government.

I really don't think the courts are the path we want to take.

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

#210

Post by scott800 »

If you've been scammed, or if you've been hacked, or if you want to find out information about some company, products, persons , or you want to investigate something contact this guy Farooq Ahmed on this email address: Theredhackergroup@gmail.com. Cheap rates, 100% satisfaction. He helped me get my $20,000k from someone that scammed me. You want to see if your boyfriend or girlfriend is cheating talk to him and arrange with him so he will discover anything you want.....Theredhackergroup@gmail.com best person for your problems, online 90% of the time
Post reply on HN