221–230 of 309 posts
> 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…
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?
I have never been clear on whether they wanted to eliminate police entirely, or turn it volunteer- and donation-only.
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…
The point is that a model which requires constant bug-fixes is one that generalizes poorly which is a symptom that you are capturing the wrong abstraction.
IMHO the main issue is kind of orthogonal to Section 230 : It's that some companies have grown too big, and have too much power, which is a direct threat to democracy, especially in smaller countries. Where it does come around to Section 230 is that the way that they can (ab)use their power is tied to what they do and laws like it : an ISP with several billion customers but under net neutrality and common carrier law…
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…
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…
The reality is probably closer to regulatory capture where only the existing large platforms can afford to moderate leaving us with a heavily moderated, but stronger/permanent FB/Twitter. /shrug
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 mad…
This is not true. The POTUS has the most prominent platform in the world, he could walk out to any random street corner and anything he says will be broadcast to every corner of the planet, he is not in any way beholden to "corporate censors".
> 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…
- No more centralized social media platform, everyone has to be responsible for ones own speech. Alternate technology will emerge to make it so easy to create ones own micro blog and everyone can subscribe.
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 mad…
We've always been in that situation. Aside from the presidential alert system there is no government-controlled communication channel from the president to individuals, and there never has been.
It's always been up to citizens to inform themselves of governmental goings-on.
Finally, the president of the United States is a citizen holding a political office. No more, no less. The sitting president deserves no special treatment in a country of equals. If a citizen breaks the rules of common decency then fellow citizens are less likely to repeat those words for others to hear.
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 mad…
> we’re in a situation where even the speech of the POTUS is beholdent to corporate censors This is not true. The POTUS has the most prominent platform in the world, he could walk out to any random street corner and anything he says will be broadcast to every corner of the planet, he is not in any way beholden to "corporate censors".
If you were Trump right now and want to directly address the nation, you know calling CNN and Fox and NBC are going to be a mixed bag at best. FAANG has given the indication right now that for two week no one should be giving the President a platform. I fully expect him to use the national broadcast system.
https://www.westernjournal.com/cnn-cuts-away-trump-coronavir...
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cnn-msnbc-cut-away-donal...
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-entert...
https://heavy.com/news/2020/07/fox-news-neil-cavuto-trump-sp...
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/watch-nicol...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fox-news-cuts-away-f...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2020/nov/06/msnbc-...
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?
This is the definitive question that has to be asked of anybody proposing a repeal of 230. I personally dislike 230, and have from the beginning, but anybody who doesn't have a direct and complete answer to this question isn't being serious. edit: I personally think that the answer is to standardize terms-of-service documents and to make them into real legal statements that both the website visitor and owner can make…