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

61–70 of 309 posts

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

#61

Post by TwoBit »

nenenndndndn wrote: post #11

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 bittersw…

He says multiple times what it is, doesn't he? It prevents services and users from being held responsible for content authored by others. And thus it was a reversal of the original Prodigy ruling.

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

#62

Post by stale2002 »

conistonwater wrote: post #23
Meekro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wait, so is the idea of those proposals that the federal government or the courts or the lawyers are going to be in charge of deciding what counts as aggressive moderation as opposed to regular moderation? Is that supposed to be better? Also, your comment is confusing because "limiting moderation to illegal content and viagra spam" was the legal limit before section 230, if I understood correctly, so it's not making…

> Is that supposed to be better?

There already exists laws that act very similarly to what people are proposing.

Specifically these laws are called common carrier laws, as they apply to phone systems, for example.

Do you believe that the existing laws, that apply to phone networks, are tyrannical or worse or bad?

I don't think it is unreasonable to consider how our existing laws, that most people find reasonable, such as the ones that already apply to phone companies, could be updated to the modern era, so as to apply to newer communication networks.

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

#63

Post by dragonwriter »

NE2z2T9qi wrote: post #51
samvher wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes me feel like I missed something. Are you writing this because you read the article today or did something else happen?

Today we had 4 tech billionaires/CEOs telling us what politicians we’re allowed to hear from or talk about. That’s not OK.

> Today we had 4 tech billionaires/CEOs telling us what politicians we’re allowed to hear from or talk about.

Nope, they are telling you who is allowed on their platform.

You can hear from or talk about whoever you want.

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

#64

Post by NE2z2T9qi »

zerocrates wrote: post #49
NE2z2T9qi wrote: post #36

This doesn’t seem that complicated to me. What’s all the I-am-smarter-than-you smugness about? > Law text: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher.” People who want Section 230 repealed or modified want to be able to make the legal argument that by actively banning certain speech while elevating other speech, social media companies ARE acting as publishers. The law do…

The snark isn't directed so much at people who want repeal (though techdirt pretty clearly would disagree with them on that point also) but rather at the very large contingent of people who express with total conviction that the law right now draws lines between neutral "platforms" who are protected and biased "publishers" who are not, when the law in fact does the exact opposite.

> when the law in fact does the exact opposite

Yes. That’s exactly the problem people who want it repealed are pointing out: the current law offers broad blanket protection to social media companies to moderate content however they want, even if their moderation practices are highly editorial and partisan, akin to traditional publishers.

Techdirt seems to think people don’t understand that the law doesn’t distinguish between platforms and publishers. On the contrary, that’s precisely why people want it repealed or modified. Either attach platform “neutrality” requirements to these broad protections, or eliminate the protections and allow social media companies to be subject to the old legal regime attached to publishers.

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

#65

Post by mpoteat »

Meekro wrote: post #44
conistonwater wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, so is the idea of those proposals that the federal government or the courts or the lawyers are going to be in charge of deciding what counts as aggressive moderation as opposed to regular moderation? Is that supposed to be better? Also, your comment is confusing because "limiting moderation to illegal content and viagra spam" was the legal limit before section 230, if I understood correctly, so it's not making…

The proposal still lets platforms moderate on certain grounds, a repeal would mean that a platform can't moderate for any reason other than "illegal content" if it wants to keep the protection. The law currently says that a platform can moderate material that is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."…

Does this mean if a sports fan comes into my forum about programming and starts making sports threads, I cannot moderate that away, or else face legal action? Does it also mean HN could face legal action according to its current rule set?

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

#66

Post by NE2z2T9qi »

dragonwriter wrote: post #63
NE2z2T9qi wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today we had 4 tech billionaires/CEOs telling us what politicians we’re allowed to hear from or talk about. That’s not OK.

> Today we had 4 tech billionaires/CEOs telling us what politicians we’re allowed to hear from or talk about. Nope, they are telling you who is allowed on their platform . You can hear from or talk about whoever you want.

Let me guess, you’re the type of person who will complain incessantly about the Koch brothers and money in politics and super PACs... and yet here you are gleeful about giving tech oligarchs the effective power to choose the next President.

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

#67

Post by samvher »

NE2z2T9qi wrote: post #51
samvher wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes me feel like I missed something. Are you writing this because you read the article today or did something else happen?

Today we had 4 tech billionaires/CEOs telling us what politicians we’re allowed to hear from or talk about. That’s not OK.

Got it - I thought that was yesterday and was confused but it’s probably a time zone thing (am in Europe).

Still isn’t that separate from 230? Going by the article this law does not seem to be as much about moderation as it is about accountability.

I do share your sentiment that there is too much control by a few powerful players over what is and isn’t acceptable discourse.

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

#68

Post by topkai22 »

froh wrote: post #55
r_ms wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a site has a black box algorithm that uses unlawful criteria (race) to limit the scope of searches, the site will not be immune under Section 230c and are liable if and only if they require the users to provide the information (race) as a condition of accessing its service in which case they act as “information content provider”

To my understanding fb would just need a number of your likes or shares to guess your gender, ethnicity, age, education level. You giving away your data this way, would that count as providing the information to control the information stream? And follow-up: This reminds me of the story of that data mining store chain which with high accuracy predicted pregnancy. A dad to a teenage daughter was very pissed when the c…

Right- it's well known that discriminatory algorithms can evolve unintentionally. It's quite possible to accidentally create a feed that almost never shows black people white potential roommates and vice-versa.

I don't think "the algorithm did it" would be necessarily be shield against liability.

And, back to my orginal point, I think hosting content a person's profile page is one thing, and making the (probably automated) editorial decision to show 100,000 people that content in their streams is another.

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

#69

Post by TameAntelope »

Meekro wrote: post #18
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…

For what it's worth, "Defund the police" does literally mean "reduce funding to what we currently refer to as the police force" whereas "repeal section 230" couldn't (in your interpretation) literally mean "strike section 230 from the US code".

The reality is what this article outlines towards the end; this is already covered by the 1st Amendment in large part, Section 230 does the bulk of its work in simplifying court proceedings. If section 230 were changed, it'd likely be unconstitutional anyway.

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

#70

Post by TameAntelope »

NE2z2T9qi wrote: post #51
samvher wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes me feel like I missed something. Are you writing this because you read the article today or did something else happen?

Today we had 4 tech billionaires/CEOs telling us what politicians we’re allowed to hear from or talk about. That’s not OK.

What part of being banned from Twitter prevents someone from being heard?

Also, who is getting banned for talking about the politicians? #2, #7, and #8 (obliquely) on trending right now are about the main politician who was banned...

Post reply on HN