Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content • Hacker News Board

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#111

Post by someguydave » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 4:28 AM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #57

honest_guy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, they should forgo their section 230 protections and stand boldly as the *publisher* they want to be.

You can't forgo them voluntarily, the section makes it a fact that a service and the service's users cannot be treated as the 'publisher' of content if all they do is re-broadcast or propagate said content. The only way this dream scenario happens is if Google's lawyers put out a statement saying "we accept full responsibility for user-generated content and welcome anyone to sue us over such content, and we will not…

That's why section 230 needs to be re-written. I'm fine with moderation, and I'm fine with sites that publish user-generated content defining their own content rules.

What I'm not fine with - and what the parent article is mainly focused on - are rules that are unevenly enforced in order to play favorites.

I would reform section 230 so say that you must post the site's user-generated content rules, and you must post a moderation log. The moderation log would consist of the list of moderation actions taken and the accounts affected, and the time. Any moderation action that appears to not align with the stated content policy should be reviewable by a third party accredited arbitrator, at the plantiff's expense.

The net effect of this scenario would be to cause the sites to write down detailed rules about content, and enforce them fairly on all sides.

Right now there are simply too many flagrantly biased or inaccurate moderation decisions on these sites, and many of them seem to be motivated by political or economic reasons.

It's one thing to ask that sites be the "public square" because of the huge gift of liability protection that section 230 grants. This argument has not held up in courts. It's a totally different thing to require sites play by their own rules, and hold them accountable for each hypocritical moderation action that genuinely hurts the "little guy"

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#112

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 4:29 AM UTC

yew wrote: post #27

It's simply irresponsible for so-called "independent journalists" to cover material that neither they nor their audiences are in a position to understand. We've seen what several decades of totally unregulated broadcasting have done, to the detriment of our society - without well-funded expert guidance, conspiracy theories and extremism run rampant. Platforms must be restricted to those who prove they can use them ap…

> Platforms must be restricted to those who prove they can use them appropriately.

Oh, I found it, the satire giveaway was at the end.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#113

Post by golemiprague » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 4:29 AM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #72

emptyparadise wrote: post #46

My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.

What tools are these actually - the delete button? When it comes down to it - i like moderated spaces on the internet. I dont want to wade through spam, not to mention violent and abusive content. I don't like seeing shock images. So yes, i support having moderation. The question to me is not: yes/no moderation, its where you draw the line; what are your policies and how are they enforced. Fundamentally i think the s…

I don't have a problem with moderation but I do have a problem when infrastructure providers like AWS decide how their clients should moderate their content.

You can't have competition when some of the competitors can't use the infrastructure. It is not without reason that utility providers can't discriminate and I think it is time to decide what is considered a utility in the internet age.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#114

Post by peytn » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 4:30 AM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #71

emptyparadise wrote: post #46

My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.

>are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? Yes, because society has a plurality of institutions that constrain power. Restrictions (even speech restrictions themselves) are subject to the court of public opinion (we're talking about them right now), there's the judiciary, political opposition and so on. This argument never had any pull for me for the same reason I'm against abolishing the police…

Aren’t those institutions sort of circumventable by lying? Can’t I just say “Barrin92 is a bastard, so I’ve banned them from speaking. Look no closer lest I ban you, too.” Feels like we might be better off in the long run by agreeing on ground rules ahead of time and then sticking to them, no?

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#115

Post by j16sdiz » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 4:30 AM UTC

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #74

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regardless of what YouTube says, they are an advertiser-friendly entertainment website. Why in God's name would you use it to "chronicle history"? I don't understand this argument at all. The entire Fourth Estate in the US has always been primarily paid for by advertisers, and just saying YouTube is an "entertainment website" seems like a poor attempt to say it can only be used for cat videos or something. YouTube…

As a de facto monopoly, it’s certainly the only one that matters right now. But if, say, the porn tubes wanted to wall off a non-NSFW side, they could become a serious competitor overnight. Or if Netflix or Amazon started allowing end-user content, for that matter.

PornHub have lots of non-NSFW contents -- they have no issue with that.

You just don't want NSFW ad popup when you view them.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#116

Post by Const-me » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 4:30 AM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #57

honest_guy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, they should forgo their section 230 protections and stand boldly as the *publisher* they want to be.

You can't forgo them voluntarily, the section makes it a fact that a service and the service's users cannot be treated as the 'publisher' of content if all they do is re-broadcast or propagate said content. The only way this dream scenario happens is if Google's lawyers put out a statement saying "we accept full responsibility for user-generated content and welcome anyone to sue us over such content, and we will not…

Paragraph b3 says this: “It is the policy of the United States to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet”

I think the technologies where a centralized commercial company controls which information is received by users violates at least the spirit of that law.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#117

Post by natmaka » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 4:30 AM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #72

emptyparadise wrote: post #46

My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.

What tools are these actually - the delete button? When it comes down to it - i like moderated spaces on the internet. I dont want to wade through spam, not to mention violent and abusive content. I don't like seeing shock images. So yes, i support having moderation. The question to me is not: yes/no moderation, its where you draw the line; what are your policies and how are they enforced. Fundamentally i think the s…

IMHO the central question is: do you tolerate zones moderated (or not moderated at all) by their owners exactly how they want it, provided that you remain free to avoid any zone and also to create your own zone(s)?

No one likes spam, abusive content, fake news... However many won't qualify a given content the same way.

IMO, for example, history shows that anyone thinking that he is _right_ and has to educate others by coercing them to pay lip service to his ideas and also by censoring contradiction, walks on a path leading to violent and abusive acts.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#118

Post by joiguru » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 4:30 AM UTC

emptyparadise wrote: post #46

My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.

It is important to acknowledge that this is a conflict between two ethical ideologies: Deontology/Kantian ethics vs Utilitarian ethics. The Deontological argument is that free speech is good, and any effort to curtail it would lead to a domino effect which will be disastrous. The Utilitarian argument is that this curtailing of free speech is acceptable as the alternative is causing more harm than good. Both ideologies have their limitations and criticisms, and there doesn't seem to be any clear winner.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#119

Post by mercurialshark » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 4:31 AM UTC

emptyparadise wrote: post #46

My question to everyone supporting restrictions on speech and supporting privacy violations, even for good reasons, is this: are you prepared to have these tools fall into the wrong hands? The same methods used to quickly shut down a dangerous website or to track down a terrorist by their online posts can be used to silence protests and to hunt down political opposition.

Yes, and I fundamentally reject the premise that inaccurate expression should be censored or moderated without a proximate cause to a specific harm or credible imminent apprehension of harm.

I do not think censorship is justifiable for potential or non-quantifiable, collective psychic harm.

Re: Silicon Valley is shutting down speech loopholes. Latest target: live content

#120

Post by jonathankoren » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 4:31 AM UTC

emptyparadise wrote: post #79

bawolff wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What tools are these actually - the delete button? When it comes down to it - i like moderated spaces on the internet. I dont want to wade through spam, not to mention violent and abusive content. I don't like seeing shock images. So yes, i support having moderation. The question to me is not: yes/no moderation, its where you draw the line; what are your policies and how are they enforced. Fundamentally i think the s…

>Fundamentally i think the solution is competitors. This was a much easier position to take when the web did not just have a few social media giants with network effects, but still: if youtube becomes to dranicon, start a new website. The tools to stream video (albeit not at scale) are just an apt-get away. I agree. I wouldn't have a problem with YouTube doing anything if YouTube wasn't the video website. We need dec…

The market provides though. There are are tons of sites for alternative and niche content, and new sites come up all the time.

Complaining that you don’t have a ready made audience is pretty weak. You need to hustle for this stuff. People used to xerox and give away zines for an audience. As the Pirate Bay founder said recently[0], it’s embarrassing how easily people are giving up.

It’s almost as if they don’t want to actually put the stuff out there, but rather be held up as martyrs. Pirate Bay and SciHub are still up, and have multiple billion dollar corporations actively gunning for them socially, legally, and extra legally. It can be done.

[0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/3an7pn/pirate-bay-founder-th...