Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 309 posts

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#11

Post by nenenndndndn »

Actually quite an awesome read here.

But also kind of funny that the resource does a great job explaining what 230 is not — while a terrible job of what it is.

At this point, I have no idea what Section 230 is.

I’m not a lawyer and I don’t really care for the details of this. Hell, I barely understand how a bill is actually turned into law.

Though, I do know that the POTUS vs Twitter showdown today has put a bittersweet taste in my mouth.

I hope they pass a new law whatever it is.

I would even bet Jack is too to take the pressure off. He’s extremely measured every time I hear him speak, and I would bet he secretly wants a law explicitly forbidding him from being content cop.

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#12

Post by banana_giraffe »

awb wrote: post #4

> if you're in a real rush, just read Section (c)(1), which is only 26 words, and is the part that basically every single court decision (and there have been many) has relied on. > (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information…

Yep, that was the original fear after a couple of landmark cases against CompuServe (no filters, so they were ruled not liable for what people said), and Prodigy (they had a team of editors filtering content, so it was ruled they were liable for what ended up on their platform).

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#13

Post by conistonwater »

1123581321 wrote: post #3

Is it fair then to say that the only way to “lose section 230 protection” is to cease having content partners by paying them, or employing them, or something like that? I don’t have a political point with this question and apologies if it was covered in the article and I missed or misunderstood it.

Through [1] I found this article [2], and it seems even if you pay people for content (Blumenthal v. Drudge, page 7; AOL was paying somebody for writing articles and somebody sued both that person and AOL for defamation) you're still explicitly immune under Section 230. (I'm not a lawyer, I find this kind of confusing sometimes.)

[1] https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2020/07/want-to-learn-...

[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3025943

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#14

Post by Nathanba »

awb wrote: post #4

> if you're in a real rush, just read Section (c)(1), which is only 26 words, and is the part that basically every single court decision (and there have been many) has relied on. > (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information…

the idea I think is that certain platforms would emerge that have to allow all content or get into legal trouble. Even if those are just base layers such as an ISP

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#15

Post by onecommentman »

chrisco255 wrote: post #8

> If you said "Section 230 is a massive gift to big tech!" > Once again, I must inform you that you are very, very wrong. If section 230 is no big deal, let's just repeal it. What's the hoopla about it, then? Why are companies so adamant to protect it? The section itself is very broad, but the impetus for the passing of Section 230 was to protect free speech by removing liability concerns for what others say online.…

Thoughtful and well-spoken. Consider the downvote-graying of your comment as a “noble gray”. Whether you agree or not, it deserves actual discussion.

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#16

Post by toast0 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #8

> If you said "Section 230 is a massive gift to big tech!" > Once again, I must inform you that you are very, very wrong. If section 230 is no big deal, let's just repeal it. What's the hoopla about it, then? Why are companies so adamant to protect it? The section itself is very broad, but the impetus for the passing of Section 230 was to protect free speech by removing liability concerns for what others say online.…

> If you said "Section 230 is a massive gift to big tech!" > Once again, I must inform you that you are very, very wrong.

>If section 230 is no big deal, let's just repeal it. What's the hoopla about it, then? Why are companies so adamant to protect it?

It's not a massive gift to big tech. It's a gift to everyone. It's a big deal to remove it. Certainly, it would affect lots of big tech companies; but it would affect lots of small sites too. Case law from before section 230 is pretty clear: either moderate perfectly, or only moderate to the minimums required to avoid criminal liability. I wouldn't participate in very many discussion forums without best effort moderation; either it would be a cesspool or sterile.

Section 230 allows sites to do whatever level of moderation they want. It makes no requirements of consistency or reason, whatever you do as a moderator is fine. The users who post are responsible for their conduct.

Certainly, there's a lot of moderation going on these days. And there's a real question of if there is a public square left; but section 230 wasn't about having a public square, it was about letting people run their squares however they like.

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#17

Post by erichocean »

awb wrote: post #4

> if you're in a real rush, just read Section (c)(1), which is only 26 words, and is the part that basically every single court decision (and there have been many) has relied on. > (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information…

Every alternative to Twitter is shittier. It's practically a law of nature.

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#18

Post by Meekro »

awb wrote: post #4

> if you're in a real rush, just read Section (c)(1), which is only 26 words, and is the part that basically every single court decision (and there have been many) has relied on. > (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information…

You're right, repealing section 230 would result in more censorship, not less. But I think "repeal section 230" has been shorthand slogan for a more detailed set of proposals (much like "defund the police" doesn't mean $0 budgets for all law enforcement).

For example, see the DoJ's proposal to amend and clarify section 230 [1] [2]. Among other changes, they suggest limiting the extent to which a platform can moderate content while retaining the protection. Under this rule, if Twitter chooses to moderate aggressively then they lose the 230 protection, while a competitor that limits its moderation to illegal content and viagra spam could still receive the 230 protection.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-unveils-pr... [2] https://www.justice.gov/ag/department-justice-s-review-secti...

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#19

Post by scruple »

erichocean wrote: post #17
awb wrote: post #4

> if you're in a real rush, just read Section (c)(1), which is only 26 words, and is the part that basically every single court decision (and there have been many) has relied on. > (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information…

Every alternative to Twitter is shittier. It's practically a law of nature.

Twitter itself, today, is a shittier version of itself, a decade ago.

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#20

Post by hemloc_io »

topkai22 wrote: post #10

I was struck by a thought while reading the article- are the feeds of social media companies actually protected under section 230? My Facebook feed is more than just a simple serving of my friends content, it’s a work in and of itself (like a collection of essays). It seems like a stretch given that the law states that they can’t be considered the publisher of “information” provided by others, but possible as these s…

I've also wondered about this, I suspect because Facebook hired 75% of their lawyers in the last 3 months we will find out soon.

I could see one argument about how an algorithm doesn't really editorialize.

A metaphor that is often used is that social media companies is that they are more like a newsstand than an editorial board on a newspaper. A newsstand isn't under any obligation to sell all the papers available in their stand or place them in a specific order. I would expect the social media companies to say that their algorithms are closer to placing newspapers on a stand based on market conditions, not based on their personal opinions/eye. If that holds up to scrutiny we'll see.

Post reply on HN