> 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.
I'm in a rush, so no time to follow a link and scroll. Just put a citation of the law in that paragraph.
You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
121–130 of 309 posts
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#122Dismissive 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.
where is the report
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
I don't care about Trump getting banned from twitter. I care about the coordinated takedown of parler by google, apple and soon amazon. Section 230 is supposed to protect free speech on the internet by shielding platforms of legal liability for user generated content. But if a few tech monopolies can just kick a platform off the internet because they don't like its user generated content then what the hell is the poi…
The demand from Apple was that Parler start moderation of the content which was trying to plan an armed version of what hand in Capitol on Jan 19th. Which, after seeing what happened recently, seems like a fair demand.
I continue to see plenty of right and left leaning views in YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#124One might say that if a law is so misunderstood by so many and has an outcome that so many would disagree with then it should be replaced based on that fact alone, as what is more dangerous to a society than laws which rule over them that are misunderstood to such a great degree (this might be said of many other laws too). You can blame the people but we install law makers to produce good laws not bad ones (I wouldn't blame the users for not using my app the way I envisaged because they're ignorant, I'd hope I'd improve the app).
But what should replace it? Perhaps something that does make the distinction between what is a platform and a publisher. That could be difficult.
I'd most likely go for something tapered, so that smaller sites had more protections / less responsibilities and larger sites less protection/more responsibility, in order to promote competition because I think lack of competition is the main problem. So if small sites retained section 230 protection and larger sites didn't, perhaps that would produce better outcomes. Thus, I'm completely against stamping down on Parler and Gab, and any other upstart in the space. The more competitors the better, in my view.
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#125This 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…
I was not aware of this point of view. I agree, new regulations will just help existing big player and new player will continue to be squeezed out.
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#126> 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…
Sounds like lawsuits galore. The lawyers would love it.
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#127Dismissive 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…
You complain of one thing in your first paragraph and proceed to do the exact same thing in your subsequent paragraphs :) .
The incentive for big corporations is to make money, and they create pockets of bubble which align with user's existing political view. This has created the polarised society we see today.
If big corporations were trying to create a society with unified political view, as conspiracy theorist on right and left are complaining about, looking at the current state of political landscape in US, I would do they have utterly failed.
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#128One might say that if a law is so misunderstood by so many and has an outcome that so many would disagree with then it should be replaced based on that fact alone, as what is more dangerous to a society than laws which rule over them that are misunderstood to such a great degree (this might be said of many other laws too). You can blame the people but we install law makers to produce good laws not bad ones (I wouldn'…
> One might say that if a law is so misunderstood by so many and has an outcome that so many would disagree with then it should be replaced based on that fact alone, as what is more dangerous to a society than laws which rule over them that are misunderstood to such a great degree (this might be said of many other laws too).
I agree that laws need to be coherent to the general public to work, but the problem here is that what people misunderstand is the pre-230 conditions that led to its creation, which we would return to if it were repealed and not replaced with something else. It’s a Chesterton’s fence.
Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#129Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA
#130One might say that if a law is so misunderstood by so many and has an outcome that so many would disagree with then it should be replaced based on that fact alone, as what is more dangerous to a society than laws which rule over them that are misunderstood to such a great degree (this might be said of many other laws too). You can blame the people but we install law makers to produce good laws not bad ones (I wouldn'…
> One might say that if a law is so misunderstood by so many and has an outcome that so many would disagree with then it should be replaced based on that fact alone, as what is more dangerous to a society than laws which rule over them that are misunderstood to such a great degree (this might be said of many other laws too). I agree that laws need to be coherent to the general public to work, but the problem here is…
I agree that Chesterton's fence is a nice thing to have in any discussion of law but I'd disagree that we'd return to the same conditions as pre-230, the internet landscape is very different now which is why the law appears to favour larger companies. In fact, repealing it altogether might favour them, it wouldn't have back then.