Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 126 posts

Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms

#41

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

Im worried this would codify fine power for whatever way the political wind blows, which seems to be incremented by increasing the size of payroll particularly at the FTC.

Here is an idea for better oversight of big tech that does not involve more regulation: a deacentralized moderation system that replicates the us court system.

If something is flagged, then a jury made up of randomly selected users decide if the comment is inciting violence / etc.

If 1 user says it does not , then there is no ban/deletion etc. You can iterate many times off that into a system that is scalable, cost effective, descentralized, transparent, and just.

Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms

#42

Post by prepend »

xpe wrote: post #20

Too 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…

Who do you think doesn’t understand 1A?

I’m not sure if you mean that the senators don’t understand. Or social media companies. Or us?

Government (in the US) regulates commercial speech all the time. Try broadcasting without an FCC license.

Government also regulated privately owned public places. Try banning people of a particular race from your shopping mall and see what happens. Shopping mall operators aren’t free to absolutely limit speech however they like, even though private.

I think it’s reasonable that government could treat social media companies as privately owned public spaces and add new regulations or requirements. I don’t think this would mean a constitutional amendment to revise 1A, but using the free speech principle for these regulations makes sense.

Of course, other countries have free speech laws and customs that have nothing to do with 1A.

Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms

#43

Post by ocdtrekkie »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #3

I'm generally fairly hesitant about restricting 230 protection, but removing it for paid content, such as ads, makes a lot of sense to me.

The failure though is the government isn't accounting for content next to ads. Ad companies are likely to keep user generated content that drives good ad revenue, even if it's also harmful.

This is a start, but the solution is to revoke 230 entirely.

Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms

#44

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

onewhonknocks wrote: post #33
Afforess wrote: post #2

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. 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…

The liability should reside solely with the person making the death threats, not with the communication tool they use to make the threats IMHO.

I mostly agree. But if the communication tool's owner knows or ought to know of the death threats, then perhaps they should bear some liability.

(If I were the communication tool, I'd add some term to my TOS that the user indemnifies me against losses due to speech the user made. So if I get sued because of something you said, I can come after you for the losses. Of course, this requires that you KYC . . . so anonymity might become harder in a post-S230 world. I sure wouldn't want to be someone running e.g. an anonymous far right or militia forum if I could be held liable for wrongful death or harassment claims.)

Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms

#46

Post by kmeisthax »

Afforess wrote: post #2

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. 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…

I should point out that we didn't tolerate this level of liability protection when Hollywood was involved. The safe harbor for copyright infringement has a notice-and-takedown requirement that CDA 230 doesn't have. If someone publishes my home address and an incitement to violence on a web forum, the platform doesn't have to do anything in order to maintain their safe harbor. However, if that same person were to copy a photo I took of my house in order to demonstrate where to go, then they have to accept a DMCA 512 takedown request or I can sue them for damages. (Assuming I jumped through all the necessary copyright hoops in order to do so.)

Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms

#47

Post by ocdtrekkie »

xpe wrote: post #8
f430 wrote: post #4

While 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?

Well, given corporate personhood, the parent may be worried this law would harm Google and Facebook's legal right to speak paid promotions for racists.

Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms

#48

Post by mullen »

gruez wrote: post #9

>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's the current bar for suing an establishment for wrongful death? if a bunch of radicals met at a bar and plotted to murder someone, would the bar be responsible if they didn't intervene?

If the bar had a of method of grouping people together based on their interests, then did nothing about violent speech in the bar while promoting other violent interests and showing ads promoting body armour, then yes, the bar should be held responsible for acts of violence that come out of meetings in the bar.

By the way, Facebook is nothing like a bar.

Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms

#49

Post by KingMachiavelli »

Afforess wrote: post #2

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. 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…

Death threats are just as valid online (or at least are in many places) as they are in the physical world. There is a difference in terms of whether the threat is genuine or not; if one anonymous person threatens another anonymous person - can it really be believed that the threat is credible despite its obviously impractical nature?

Just like in the real world, the venue is not responsible. Walmart is not responsible if someone shouts death threats inside. Walmart or other users/customers can call the police but it's not Walmart's job to tackle the guy. The really only difference is that local & state law enforcement is less inclined to enforce the law against online individuals given the time & energy required in addition the the threat being significantly less likely to be credible.

Re: U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms

#50

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

The bill (https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4/f/4fa9c9...) would exclude not only the things listed in the source article but also any kind of injuctive relief. Doesn't this end up being basically a full repeal? I'm sure Stratton Oakmont would have been satisfied with an injunction requiring Prodigy to take down the critical messages on their bulletin board.
Post reply on HN