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

161–170 of 309 posts

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

#161

Post by cwhiz »

cwhiz wrote: post #156

This article does not address curation or editorializing. If you, the platform, are in charge of what I see, then you are a publisher. If you, the platform, add comments to what I write, you are editorializing, and you are a publisher. Publishers should not have 230 protections.

To add an example, YouTube landing page is full of curated content from Google. I have not subscribed to any of it. In fact, my subscribed videos are on a completely separate page.

Google has chosen what they want me to see. Therefore, Google is a publisher. The fact that they hide this behind an algorithm has no bearing on the outcome. Google is in charge of the content that I see. If Google is in charge, they are publishers.

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

#162

Post by ghaff »

cblconfederate wrote: post #99
michaelmrose wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain the society wide manipulation of information and what positive results can be obtained by allowing the kind of actions that are currently blocked by 230 which could be brought were it to be repealed. Most users who want 230 repealed seem to believe that Facebook would have to give up moderation of their offensive comments/posts to be treated as a common carrier somehow to avoid liability. This is of c…

I believe the understanding is that without 230, facebook would be liable just like the rest of the press is, and thus be essentially forced to disallow free-for-all posting. This is a different mode of manipulation, where the people who own the media can shape the public discourse, but isn't that what the whole world had for decades and decades before social media?

In general, the understanding (right or wrong) is that without 230, a platform has to choose one of two actions: No moderation (modulo moderating for illegal content--whatever that is exactly) or moderating all posts (which is clearly not an option in general).

It may or may not make a big difference as a practical matter. Most things Twitter would moderate today are arguably threats, incitement to riot, etc., all of which could in principle be prosecuted as crimes. But it's at least a difference in principle.

ADDED: On the other hand, there's all the SPAM, link SPAM, astroturfing etc. which isn't actually illegal. Arguably some things could be handled through Terms of Service. But it's worth remembering that Section 230 didn't come about to address purely theoretical concerns given that Prodigy did lose a legal case after all.

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

#163

Post by boardwaalk »

ummonk wrote: post #118

A lot of these are straw men arguments. In particular it's taking a lot of statements about how Section 230 ought to be amended or replaced, and falsely portraying those statements as being about how Section 230 currently works. Obviously Section 230 doesn't work that way right now, which is precisely why people are proposing changes.

It’s hard to have a conversation when some (most even?) don’t understand how the law (both specifically this one and in general) work. I wouldn’t throw out “straw man” here — you need to have common (semi-accurate) ground, especially before proposing changes.

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

#164

Post by scsilver »

liaukovv wrote: post #32
toast0 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The question is if twitter is a private square or a public one.

No the question is if twitter had a monopoly on private squared that almost anyone can access and peek into. They don't and there are dozens of alternatives.

Its not a publicly owned square, that is obvious. It may be a publicly accessible square.

Ultimately its right to kick people out for lighting dumpster fires, still seems perfectly reasonable if it were a private square that is pubolically accessible.

That said, I could see civil suits could argue responsibility for keeping that square safe for guests(ie allowing ice to build up on the private but accessible square and someone slips and falls)

But if twitter doesnt want someone there in its square, it should be free to kick them out if they arent a protected class, just like every private but publicly accessible business we patron.

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

#165

Post by onionisafruit »

zerocrates wrote: post #53
lovecg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an interesting train of thought. I also wonder about content that’s been modified in some significant way (fact check labels not clearly separated from the content itself for example) by the provider: is there a point where the provider could become liable? I.e. if I made a joke website where you could post comments and it would auto-replace any mention of “topkai22” with “the notorious scoundrel topkai22”, co…

Information that a provider creates itself isn't covered at all by 230, so they're potentially liable for things that don't originate from users like fact check labels no matter how they're applied. That's one of the many silly things about the usual 230 discourse: one of the earlier flashpoints was around things like Facebook and Twitter flagging "misinformation" and the like, when they don't actually get any protec…

Facebook went with the model of using third parties for fact checking. That lets them claim they are just a platform for the fact checkers.

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

#166

Post by prepend »

TameAntelope wrote: post #69
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…

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 cou…

I think it’s hard to claim your definition for”defund the police.”

Perhaps some people view it as “reduce police funding” but many mean it to mean “$0 to police” and that’s the definition of defund.

Words matter and language matters and trying to nuance a pretty simple statement like “defund” is hard for people to understand. Especially with people, friends of mine to be specific, literally mean to defund and remove police.

I know no one involved with the Seattle CHAZ [0] but, for example, this is a group that wants to defund police.

If the intent is to reevaluate police funding then a label like “police reform” makes more sense. Calling something “defund police” and meaning reform is dumb, it’s foolish when there are also people using the label who want to defund the police.

I had a conversation with someone using the phrase ACAB who then explained that not really all cops are bad. This is really confusing to me as to why make a statement that I don’t believe in.

I think we need serious improvement in how we fund and operate police. I want reform and work toward reform. But small, suburban, peaceful city has 100 police officers for 50k people and we have military vehicles and whatnot. I want to work on this and make it better but conversations seem current divided between people who want to increase and zero out the budget and people trying to improve are getting shouted down or ignored. So we’re sticking with the normal increase 1% a year.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone

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

#167

Post by scsilver »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #149

This is an informative article, but it is missing a couple key things. Maybe the article was strictly aiming to be factual, but it felt like it was taking the position that 230 is good and should stay in place. With the assumption that it means to argue for keeping 230, they failed to convince me that it was a necessary piece of regulation. Yes, they corrected many misconceptions, but at the end of the day there is s…

I just started heddit.com, I am one engineer, I have 2 million users, I am making 10 dollars a month from ads and losing 10 from hosting. How do I regulate my content to protect me when 230 is taken down?

Maybe the solution is partial exceptions to 230 on 10 billion dollar+ corps? It seems a more anti trust approach would solve your concerns without removing protections for small upstarts.

I dont think a blanket repeal is going to help the proliferation of free speech, only the proliferation of private speech.

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

#168

Post by mojzu »

ghaff wrote: post #154
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think phone and Internet providers are the same as social networking sites. I'm happy to let people I don't like have their own websites. I don't want to be forced to let them use mine to post about how I should die.

FWIW, Section 230 was added primarily so that ISPs and hosting providers wouldn't be liable for content on their sites given that social media as we know it today basically didn't exist.

My understanding was the origins of section 230 were because of a couple of lawsuits that targetted ISPs for content that users posted on their services.

One company moderated their content, they were found liable for libel in user content in court. The other company did not moderate their content, they were not found liable for their user content. Anecdotally one of these services was seen as the good one and the other as the crappy one because of their moderation policies.

While social media didn't exist at the time in its current form, I'd argue this is still very relevant today. Without section 230 websites would only be able to moderate for illegal content, and there's a mountain of stuff you wouldn't want to see online that isn't technically illegal, and a lot of people who will try to put it in front of you if given the oppurtunity.

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

#169

Post by PeterisP »

dd36 wrote: post #148
PeterisP wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO "And small websites would shut down out of fear of lawsuits" is misleading - it would be more appropriate to say "And small websites would refuse all user-generated content out of fear of lawsuits". They would still operate, but without the immunity the only safe way of moderation is to either have very strict moderation that ensures that anything even remotely questionable can't be posted; or (if you can't affo…

I think the legal defense would be whether the site acted reasonably and liability would be difficult to establish without harm. If people use your site to coordinate doxxing someone and you don’t take reasonable actions to prevent, stop or legally identify the users behind it, then you’re going to have a tough time getting out of liability. AFAIK doxxing isn’t illegal but harassment can be. Side note: I wonder what…

If there is harm, then without section 230 "acting reasonably" is not a legal defence - you (as the website/business/service allowing user-generated content) will be targeted by lawsuits even if you act reasonably simply because may be easier to extract monetary compensation from you than from a random teenager who actually posted the harassing content. Even if you identify that poster and ban them, that does not undo the harm and liability, so you'd be the target of expensive lawsuits. You would likely have grounds for a counterclaim to that user to compensate you for the losses, but that won't help you much, as your costs would be the total claim of the harassment + lawsuit cost, and your compensation would be limited to what you can recover before the user files bankruptcy.

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

#170

Post by modmans2nd »

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."…

You obviously didn’t bother reading the article
Post reply on HN