You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by lostcolony » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:29 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #183

modmans2nd wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Section 230 doesn’t give social media any more power than they have under the first amendment. It is simply a shield from nuisance lawsuits.

It does though. For example, it gives them the power to refuse to remove false information without being held responsible for it, which the first amendment does not give to publishers like the NYT.

So there's a nuance there you're missing.

Newspaper publishing is opt in; that is, anything published they chose to publish.

Websites that allow third parties to post content on them is opt out; that is, anything published did so without initial moderation.

If a website operator posts their own statements, they can theoretically be found to be libelous. They can't be held accountable for posts by other people. Newspapers potentially can (though I've never seen a court case where a newspaper was sued for something in the Opinion section), but they -chose- to publish that item.

Realistically websites should be thought of as a public bulletin board. Should you be able to sue the person who put up the bulletin board, for content that was posted to the bulletin board by other people?

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

#212

Post by cujo » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:32 PM UTC

parsimo2010 wrote: post #179

scsilver wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 repe…

To me heddit.com looks like a parked domain that isn't serving any content, 3rd party or not, so isn't protected by Section 230 and doesn't need to be. Hypothetical examples aren't a great argument against real world situations that have already happened, but a fake example makes me suspect you aren't arguing in good faith.

This is a perfectly sound hypothetical. Do you only allow discussion with people who have experienced a direct hardship? Is that your line for moderation? I'm being antagonistic, but that's part of your 230 fix right? You want judges to draw the magical cutoff line.

So what do you do about companies who run a shoestring budget? They can't play in this game?

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

#213

Post by jpttsn » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:38 PM UTC

diveanon wrote: post #198

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 s…

They surely haven’t put a blanket ban on lying on Twitter?

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

#214

Post by epistasis » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:39 PM UTC

TameAntelope wrote: post #203

EE84M3i wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For what it's worth, "Defund the police" does literally mean "reduce funding to what we currently refer to as the police force" I think the relevant part is that one definition of "defund" is (from Google answer box/featured snippet, only provided definition): >prevent from continuing to receive funds. So some people upon first hearing the phrase "defund the police" understand it to mean "prevent the police from con…

So you thought there was a large group of vocal people who believed that literally zero law enforcement was a genuine wish?

There are decades of academic work on police abolition, books upon books and papers upon papers. Not everyone who says "defund the police" is an abolitionist, but many are.

As far as I can tell, there's no concrete replacement proposed for section 230, just a general wish for less protection for these platforms. Complete police and prison abolition is a much more thorough and considered philosophy.

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

#215

Post by hndudette2 » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:40 PM UTC

_yhdy wrote: post #89

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.

Nonsense. A former Democratic staffer employed by Facebook censored the breaking news story about Hunter Biden's laptop on the eve of the election which we now know to be factually accurate. This is a literal and recent example of what the person you accused of being malicious talked about. We all know that if it was a smear against the Trump campaign instead, that this would've never happened. You must be able to see the double standard at work.

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

#216

Post by rpdillon » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:50 PM UTC

annoyingnoob wrote: post #209

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 concur with your complaints about techdirt. Masnick comes across as self-righteous in most of the pieces on the web site that should be called the Daily Outrage. I think your first paragraph really describes techdirt and not HN.

Interesting. I find Masnick's writing quite accomplished, and he is quite correct that there is a lot of misinformation (which he links to!) about Section 230. I agree he writes confidently about technology's intersection with the law, but I don't see that as a flaw: the Techdirt team seems to have a much better handle on these issues than the average journalist, and certainly a better understanding than the average blogger or internet commenter.

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

#217

Post by recursive » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

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…

> (much like "defund the police" doesn't mean $0 budgets for all law enforcement)

off-topic, but I've never seen anyone admit this, or even suggest it, before now. It would probably strengthen the case if that was more obvious.

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

#218

Post by matwood » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

spaetzleesser wrote: post #160

virgilp wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Defund the police" is such a bad catchphrase, it does all sorts of disservices to the actual proposed measures. It sounds vengeful and petty, not thoughtful. It's also misleading - the purpose is not (or should not) be primarily to make sure police has less funds; it's to make sure social services and other programs have funds. Why not call it "fund social services" instead of "defund the police", instead? ("fund so…

The left has been historically bad at messaging. They use terms like “wealth redistribution” or “defund the police” which triggers a lot of people. The right is much better with terms like “tax relief” or “election integrity”. That’s definitely something the left should work on.

Yep. The right has been great at messaging and mobilizing their base under a single message. See 'pro-life' for example.

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

#219

Post by hndudette2 » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:59 PM UTC

diveanon wrote: post #198

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 s…

Nobody is arguing that these platforms don't have a legal right to do what they've done. The only debate is about what they ought to do, and whether the laws should be changed as a result of those preferences.

Regarding Parler: it is a large platform with a mixture of conservative speech and outright violent rhetoric. Does that justify its ban? The same is true for Twitter and FB (ie there exists a large amount of unmoderated extremist speech and calls for violence on these platforms). What makes it right to ban only Parler? Is there evidence that the density of such speech is higher there?

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

#220

Post by hedora » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:59 PM UTC

I have one issue with this article.

Section 230 certainly encouraged centralization of the internet. Without it, platforms would be liable for content they hosted, which would be financially unviable.

Instead, people would have to self-host their own content on their own infrastructure. (230 provides no protection for people that do that.)

In addition to preventing the big monopolies from arising, this would have made censorship and surveillance much more difficult.

As it is, we’re in a situation where even the speech of the POTUS is beholdent to corporate censors.

The rest of the DMCA drastically shifted the balance of power toward copyright holders (and was also designed to increase consolidation of the industry); section 230 was necessary to offset that. I’d be happy to see the whole law repealed, though it would have the side effect of shattering the business models of the big tech monopolies. Repealing 230 but not the rest of the DMCA would be madness.