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

81–90 of 309 posts

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

#81

Post by waheoo »

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…

Defund the police does mean $0 for law enforcement though? The only people I've ever seen claim it doesn't are people that aren't claiming they want to defund police but do want to side with those who do. "They can't really mean that, you must have misunderstood." - nope.

Just like when I say repeal 230, I'm seriously saying get rid of the thing or at least rework it so people aren't being censored by non non govt but still very real monopolies on speech.

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

#82

Post by boomboomsubban »

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…

Couldn't you make the same argument about stickied posts on old forums?

I don't think how the content is displayed changes whether they are covered by section 230, and I think the anti-discriminaton exceptions would need to be more explicit to matter.

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

#83

Post by jojobas »

post_below wrote: post #50
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 reasons are obvious but the outcome is the important thing. Largely the sentiments behind wanting to repeal section 230 seem to be about the big platforms. The point that often gets missed is that without 230 ONLY the big platforms could afford to exist (and probably not even them in their current form). So while the goal to limit the power of the tech giants may be good, the proposed method will likely accomplis…

The outcome of the current situation is clear: people's minds are influenced by unchecked, politically slanted, big corporate entities under a guise of social interaction.

I struggle to see how additional measures aimed at said entities (which is the kind of amendment typically sought) would remove competition.

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

#84

Post by username90 »

mpoteat wrote: post #65
Meekro wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Spamming would go under harassment in most cases.

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

#85

Post by colllectorof »

Dismissive article that misrepresents both why "normal" people out there are unhappy about section 230 and what the higher levels of conversation about changing it really look like right now[1]. Articles like this are read meat for Hacker News. You endlessly reassert your political bias while pretending you are "informing" some imaginary group of stupid people (who in reality isn't even here to be "informed").

[1] Here is a recent discussion about 320 from a few lawyers and an YouTuber who used to work for the mainstream media:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a5H1A65wOM

As you will see if you watch the video, it is much more nuanced than the aggregate straw-man set up by the article.

...

The crux of the issue is that Section 320 was drafted with a lot of assumptions in mind. At the time the Web was a fledgling thing. At the time Section 230's practical effect was to empower emerging platforms to do some common-sense moderation without fear of being held liable for all content they distributed.

Does the law still has this effect? Yes, it does. But that is no longer the primary effect in terms of how this law affect most of the people out there. Today its primary effect is to give an impenetrable legal shield to giant tech corporations that engage in deliberate society-wide manipulation of information. That is what most people out there are unhappy about, even if they don't quite know how to phrase it.

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

#86

Post by cjfd »

colllectorof wrote: post #85

Dismissive article that misrepresents both why "normal" people out there are unhappy about section 230 and what the higher levels of conversation about changing it really look like right now[1]. Articles like this are read meat for Hacker News. You endlessly reassert your political bias while pretending you are "informing" some imaginary group of stupid people (who in reality isn't even here to be "informed"). [1] He…

As such it seems this law makes sense but it also seems to do little about some other problems. I have started to think lately that what is best is a law to forbid espionage on people. Like, you cannot collect and/or store large portions of the peoples browser history. Also, it should be forbidden for the data of one service to be shared with another. Like the example of facebook and whatsapp sharing their data.

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

#87

Post by agrajag »

mpoteat wrote: post #65
Meekro wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, except for the fact that 1st amendment protections would still exist. How much protection that actually provides is unknown and it would need to be litigated to find out.

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

#88

Post by notahacker »

agrajag wrote: post #87
mpoteat wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, except for the fact that 1st amendment protections would still exist. How much protection that actually provides is unknown and it would need to be litigated to find out.

Suffice to say a redraft which means that you'll have to go to court to determine what types of content you are and aren't allowed to moderate without the side effect of becoming responsible for everything people say on your web property is not an improvement.

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

#89

Post by _yhdy »

colllectorof wrote: post #85

Dismissive article that misrepresents both why "normal" people out there are unhappy about section 230 and what the higher levels of conversation about changing it really look like right now[1]. Articles like this are read meat for Hacker News. You endlessly reassert your political bias while pretending you are "informing" some imaginary group of stupid people (who in reality isn't even here to be "informed"). [1] He…

I do not like people like you who are intelligent enough to be intentionally intellectually dishonest while being extremely malicious underneath.

You fool people for sure. I do not know why you do it, though.

There is no manipulation going on by “Big Tech”. Your fear mongering is unfounded. Pushing this sort of rhetoric is what created the insurrectionist events a few days ago.

Post reply on HN