I think we should do the reverse: No moderation outside of court orders or you risk losing 230 protections.
I'd imagine Hacker News would be a much less pleasant place if dang was outlawed.
U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms
21–30 of 126 posts
Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms
#22>Called the SAFE TECH Act, the bill would mark the latest effort to make social media companies like Alphabet Inc’s Google, Twitter Inc and Facebook Inc more accountable for “enabling cyber-stalking, targeted harassment, and discrimination on their platforms,” Senators Mark Warner, Mazie Hirono and Amy Klobuchar said in a statement. Ehh. Slippery slope theory, if you don't want to be subject to these behaviors don't…
> if you don't want to be subject to these behaviors don't use social media
It is nearly impossible to engage in modern democracy without engaging in social media. I'm not saying this isn't a slippery slope, but when the only way to participate in our economy and government is online... well, there's a general public good element that needs to be considered by society. I'm not a big fan of government regulation, but the socials clearly aren't going to do it fairly.
Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms
#23Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms
#24I think we should do the reverse: No moderation outside of court orders or you risk losing 230 protections.
> I think we should do the reverse: No moderation outside of court orders or you risk losing 230 protections.
I hope you like spam.
Also, what you propose is equivalent to forcing you to pay thousands of dollars and wait weeks or months to take down an obnoxious sign that I put up in your yard. How workable does that sound to you?
Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms
#25>Called the SAFE TECH Act, the bill would mark the latest effort to make social media companies like Alphabet Inc’s Google, Twitter Inc and Facebook Inc more accountable for “enabling cyber-stalking, targeted harassment, and discrimination on their platforms,” Senators Mark Warner, Mazie Hirono and Amy Klobuchar said in a statement. Ehh. Slippery slope theory, if you don't want to be subject to these behaviors don't…
> if you then hop in your truck and run into a tree, you can't sue the bar Actually I don't think that's entirely true. I'm pretty sure there are laws in some places that if the bar knows a person is drunk and knows that they will drive, and does not prevent it, then the bar or the bartender (or both) can be held liable if the person then gets into an accident.
CRIMINAL PENALTIES
The Liquor Control Act prohibits alcoholic liquor permittees or their employees from selling or delivering alcohol to intoxicated persons (CGS § 30-86(b)(1)).
Although the statute does not define "intoxicated persons," the Connecticut Supreme Court held in 1937 that someone can conclude that a defendant is intoxicated if he or she is staggering and not able to run very well (State v. Katz, 122 Conn. 439).
Violations are punishable by up to a $1,000 fine, up to one year imprisonment, or both, for each offense
Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms
#26Good. It is bizarre to me that one could post literal death threats online endlessly without fear of any consquences, yet if you were to yell the same threats in a public location, the police would be summoned. My main concern would be that any regulations that punish companies for allowing threatening material on their site punish in proportion to the audience who was exposed to it. Big fines for big tech, tiny fine…
>Good. It is bizarre to me that one could post literal death threats online endlessly without fear of any consquences, yet if you were to yell the same threats in a public location, the police would be summoned.
That's only because the former is done anonymously and the latter can be easily be attributed to you, right? If a kid sent death threats to his classmates using his real-life facebook account, the police would be summoned too.
Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms
#27>Called the SAFE TECH Act, the bill would mark the latest effort to make social media companies like Alphabet Inc’s Google, Twitter Inc and Facebook Inc more accountable for “enabling cyber-stalking, targeted harassment, and discrimination on their platforms,” Senators Mark Warner, Mazie Hirono and Amy Klobuchar said in a statement. Ehh. Slippery slope theory, if you don't want to be subject to these behaviors don't…
> if you then hop in your truck and run into a tree, you can't sue the bar Actually I don't think that's entirely true. I'm pretty sure there are laws in some places that if the bar knows a person is drunk and knows that they will drive, and does not prevent it, then the bar or the bartender (or both) can be held liable if the person then gets into an accident.
Known as "Dram shop laws": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dram_shop
Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms
#28Too many people do not understand the First Amendment (1A). In case you have not reviewed the 1A recently, please read this carefully: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment > The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise…
SCOTUS also ruled that black people are not people[0], so their opinion on to whom and to what freedom applies is irrelevant.
Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms
#29While this looks good on paper, it would severely hinder free speech on these platforms if not already.
When you say "free speech", are you referring to the First Amendment (1A)? If so, are you claiming that the bill would conflict with 1A? If so, on what basis?
Not the OP, but I believe the freedom of speech is a concept that exists outside of the Constitution. The OP may be referring to a principle or ideal instead of a constitutional construction.
Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms
#30>The bill would make it clear that Section 230, [...] does not apply to ads or other paid content seems reasonable >does not impair the enforcement of civil rights laws what types of civil rights abuses were protected by section 230? I'm under the impression that saying/posting racial slurs isn't illegal. > and does not bar wrongful-death actions. what's the current bar for suing an establishment for wrongful death?…
>what types of civil rights abuses were protected by section 230? I'm under the impression that saying/posting racial slurs isn't illegal.
Many people seem to believe that moderating platforms and banning accounts or otherwise enforcing terms of service for any content or behavior which isn't strictly illegal is a violation of their civil rights, and that this abuse is enabled by Section 230. They believe that any alteration of user submitted content makes the "platform" no longer a "platform" but a "publisher" and that they should be legally liable for that content.