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

191–200 of 309 posts

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

#191

Post by gameswithgo »

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…

So if 230 were repealed, and you posted about wanting to invade congress or how you want to send black people back to africa and moderators removed it, what legal recourse is now open to you, with 230 gone?

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

#192

Post by vharuck »

murbard2 wrote: post #131

Section 230 is a great thing and the consequences of repealing it or adding extra requirements to qualify for its protection would be unequivocally bad. From a pure logic standpoint, there is something that bugs me with the argument that moderation isn't the same as producing content. A website's moderation policy could be that, on any given day, any message other than "The archduke is a corrupt autocrat responsible…

>A large part of software engineering consists in finding the right abstractions to think about a problem, and when one leaks that badly, it's generally and indication that one is thinking about the problem wrong.

Any law about content moderation is ripe for being gamed, so I don't think a hard definition can ever suffice. Think of libel: very hard to prove because it requires clear falsehoods, intent, and expression. So plenty of people, especially politicians, have learned to walk the line. They can legally convince people that their opponents are space aliens who stomp on apple pies and interrupt baseball games.

A better example for this "adaptive" kind of law is online gaming. If a player uses an exploit to gain an advantage, the developer will often correct that exploit. When developers stop pushing bugfixes, the game often ends up being dominated by whatever exploits were left. For law, legal precedent is like a bugfix.

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

#193

Post by ajross »

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…

Arrgh, you are repeating almost verbatim like half the nonsense that is debunked in the linked article!

If, say, Twitter doesn't want republicans to talk on the Internet (to pick one ridiculous example), repealing section 320 would do nothing to stop them, nothing. No modification of section 320 would do anything, because nothing in section 320 deals with content moderation at all. It's only about liability.

I mean, just to be blunt: if 320 was repealed right now Parler would be sued into jelly given all the violent right wing garbage on that site, but Twitter (which is trying to remove it) would still be around, and still (as per my ridiculous example) censoring republicans.

Now, maybe you want some kind of new fairness doctrine law or something. And that would be interesting to discuss. But it's got nothing to do with liability protections for internet companies, nothing at all.

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

#194

Post by betterunix2 »

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.…

"the impetus for the passing of Section 230 was to protect free speech by removing liability concerns for what others say online."

No, it was not meant to protect free speech. It was meant to protect the market for Internet services, from ISPs up to user-facing services. The Internet ecosystem would be crushed either by trolls/nazis or by waves of lawsuits against companies that dared to moderate such things without some form of liability protection for services that perform some degree of moderation.

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

#195

Post by depressedpanda »

michaelmrose wrote: post #108
NE2z2T9qi wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't want offensive or hateful people to have free reign on Twitter and Facebook indeed most don't.

Sure, but are you comfortable with the effect that private companies with greater political reach than many nation states can arbitrarily censor speech and push their own politics?

I'm not, regardless of whether I agree with their politics or censorship.

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

#196

Post by TameAntelope »

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #77
TameAntelope wrote: post #70

Earlier 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…

Something I’ve been thinking about a bit lately, with this Section 230 topic, is at what point do we actually hit the limit for, “go start your own”?

Do racists have to build their own Internet in order to ensure they can spread a racist message digitally?

That said, Twitter isn’t that line, and neither are app stores. I’m typing this in a Safari browser on my iPhone; HN doesn’t have or need an app.

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

#197

Post by daniellarusso »

graeme wrote: post #174
dd36 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What legal action would you be concerned about?

If your forum had money, you’d be a sitting duck for someone claiming their rights were violated and demanding compensation.

Or once they obtain a judgement, seize your domain name.

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

#198

Post by diveanon »

Donald Trump is still in control of one of the most effective communication channels in the world.

He could schedule a press conference at any time and have his words plastered all over Twitter within minutes by journalists.

Twitter as a platform made a choice, as a private entity. This choice is legally protected. Likewise Apple and Google both have the right to ban apps like Parler from their app stores under the same protections.

Nobody is banning "conservative" speech. What they are banning is outright lies, racist rhetoric, and calls for organized violent action.

If that has become synonymous with conservatism and the Republican party, then I would say that their "political movement" needs to be dismantled.

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

#199

Post by recny »

roenxi wrote: post #97
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…

Judges are the ones we all officially trust to make judgments. It isn't better as such to get them involved, but it might become necessary. I won't worry about technicalities, because I have no idea what they are. But it is becoming abundantly clear that the social media companies have political power and are willing to wield it if they think that it is appropriate, similar to newspapers and television. It is reasona…

The problem with leaving it to the courts is, people who own small niche forums can't afford to fight legal battles.

This will leave an internet for those who can (i.e the big players).

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

#200

Post by codazoda »

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…

> Today its primary effect is to give an impenetrable legal shield to giant tech corporations that engage in deliberate society-wide manipulation of information.

I work at a small (compared to Google and Facebook) classifieds site. I don't think we could exist without section 230, because it would have been too expensive to start without immunity for what our users posted. So, it still does it's initial purpose.

I would also like to start a social network for my local community, but I can't afford the legal liability of what my neighbors might say on the platform I built. If 230 goes away, maybe I'll never be able to build that community. And don't forget, FB started at a single college.

I'm also sure that the initial individuals posting things are exactly the correct individuals to be liable for the things they post.

Post reply on HN