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

241–250 of 261 posts

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

#241

Post by simlevesque »

dlp211 wrote: post #171
zlsa wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It could be a RSS feed. It could be a txt file on S3. I'm not asking for much.

I work on digital displays and I would like to help spread awareness when alerts occur. It is an incredibly complex process, made for big telecommunication companies.

A public API could save lives. You can't even ask them to send you a SMS on Twillio and make an API yourself. They send it through telecommunication networks, not by sending SMS to everybody.

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

#242

Post by stale2002 »

triceratops wrote: post #240
stale2002 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, what do you think common carrier means? It doesn't mean "completely unmoderated" Systems such as the phone network are pretty darn unmoderated. It is mostly unmoderated, even if common carriers are allowed to do a small amount, of highly restricted moderation actions. > as you appear to believe I have just clarified. It means that there are very strong regulations, that ban many forms of moderation. > so why…

> Common carriers have large restrictions on the amount of moderation that they are allowed to do Yeah, I don't think you know what common carrier actually means.[1] The moderation that telecoms and ISPs perform relates to traffic that can negatively affect other users of those systems. Social media platforms can easily argue that their moderation already follows similar principles. It just happens that they deal wit…

> Social media platforms can easily argue

Social media platforms are not currently subject to common carrier laws.

And I am saying that the law should be changed so that they are, or whatever needs it be done to make that happen.

Common carriers are absolutely restricted from engaging in certain actions.

Were you not aware that there are regulations that restrict what common carriers do?

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

#243

Post by triceratops »

stale2002 wrote: post #242
triceratops wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Common carriers have large restrictions on the amount of moderation that they are allowed to do Yeah, I don't think you know what common carrier actually means.[1] The moderation that telecoms and ISPs perform relates to traffic that can negatively affect other users of those systems. Social media platforms can easily argue that their moderation already follows similar principles. It just happens that they deal wit…

> Social media platforms can easily argue Social media platforms are not currently subject to common carrier laws. And I am saying that the law should be changed so that they are, or whatever needs it be done to make that happen. Common carriers are absolutely restricted from engaging in certain actions. Were you not aware that there are regulations that restrict what common carriers do?

You're repeating the same things over and over with little logic, and no reference to anything I said. There's little point continuing this conversation.

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

#244

Post by stale2002 »

triceratops wrote: post #243
stale2002 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Social media platforms can easily argue Social media platforms are not currently subject to common carrier laws. And I am saying that the law should be changed so that they are, or whatever needs it be done to make that happen. Common carriers are absolutely restricted from engaging in certain actions. Were you not aware that there are regulations that restrict what common carriers do?

You're repeating the same things over and over with little logic, and no reference to anything I said. There's little point continuing this conversation.

> with little logic

Do you disagree that common carriers are subject to certain restrictions?

I am not sure how you could possibly not recognize the fact that we have common carrier laws.

> You're repeating the same things

You are misphrasing the things that I am trying to say, so I have to slightly rephrase it so that you cannot misinterprete my statements.

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

#245

Post by microcolonel »

post_below wrote: post #23

The most concerning thing about the tweet to me is the popular replies which support Pai's statement. The media, and those of us who understand what Pai did to net neutrality, need to do a better job of communicating to the general public exactly what Pai is, and what he's there to do. It would also be nice if people understood that section 230 protections allow the internet as we know it (not just the social media g…

Much as I think its loose interpretation has a lot to do with the success of major internet hubs, it has become clear that unlimited liability for selective publishers is not a sustainable model for American public life.

We can not sustain a system where a major paper and the U.S. Press Secretary is censored by corporations entrusted with a significant portion of the public square, but that corporation simultaneously has no liability for the things which they, by their non-interference, must be endorsing.

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

#246

Post by stale2002 »

triceratops wrote: post #199
the8472 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Even "common carriers" don't have to carry everything.

Looking at your comments it seems like you at least agree that common carriers are subject to some laws.

Great! It seems like you agree with me that there are laws and things that common carriers have to do, and that there is content that they are required to carry some content.

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

#247

Post by triceratops »

stale2002 wrote: post #246
triceratops wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Even "common carriers" don't have to carry everything. Looking at your comments it seems like you at least agree that common carriers are subject to some laws. Great! It seems like you agree with me that there are laws and things that common carriers have to do, and that there is content that they are required to carry some content.

And yet you don't seem to accept that common carriers perform moderation too. Nor have you acknowledged that ISPs aren't common carriers and the current FCC made it that way. Nor have you acknowledged the hypocrisy of this.

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

#248

Post by stale2002 »

triceratops wrote: post #247
stale2002 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even "common carriers" don't have to carry everything. Looking at your comments it seems like you at least agree that common carriers are subject to some laws. Great! It seems like you agree with me that there are laws and things that common carriers have to do, and that there is content that they are required to carry some content.

And yet you don't seem to accept that common carriers perform moderation too. Nor have you acknowledged that ISPs aren't common carriers and the current FCC made it that way. Nor have you acknowledged the hypocrisy of this.

> that common carriers perform moderation

I've specifically clarified that common carriers are subject to certain restrictions on what they can do, and am saying that those restrictions should apply to social media, with a law change.

> the current FCC

My specific claim is that the law should be changed such that they are subject to common carrier laws.

Social media companies are not currently subject to them, but I am saying that the law should be changed so that they are.

If you want to say that the law should be changed so that ISPs are subject to those as well, then go ahead and argue that, but that does not contradict what I am arguing for.

Anyway, I am just glad at this point that you agree that common carriers are subject to certain restrictions, which was my point the whole time. And I am saying that those same restrictions, that you agree exist, should be applied to social media companies, via a law change.

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

#249

Post by juniper_strong »

joshuamorton wrote: post #233
paulgb wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't unpublish it, but in the long run it sets up Twitter and Facebook as de facto deciders of what type of content is created. To the extent that newspapers rely on social media for traffic, the editorial decisions of those platforms will silently shape the content of those newspapers. It's the “hidden” aspect of this control that worries me. The difference in the printing press analogy is that if a printing c…

Even if there's one poster printing company in town, they have first amendment rights. You don't lose those for being too successful.

If a poster printing company started making editorial decisions about which posters they printed, they would be at risk of being considered a publisher and as such being liable for the content of the posters they printed.

That isn't true for internet content providers due to section 230.

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

#250

Post by juniper_strong »

triceratops wrote: post #200
juniper_strong wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Publisher, distributor, and platform are legal definitions that have been worked out through case law over a long period of time. Blocking content on a political basis as a non-internet content provider would be more than enough to get you treated as a publisher.

In pre-section 230 law, even blocking content for vulgarity was enough to get you treated as a publisher, that decision was Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.

Eugene Volokh has a good summary of this at https://reason.com/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-%C2%A7-230-and-the-pu.... You might want to read it so you don't make completely uninformed statements on the internet. You should stop doing that.

Post reply on HN