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

61–70 of 126 posts

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

#61

Post by Person5478 »

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…

threat of harm is protected speech.

It has to be shown that there is both intent and the ability to carry it out before it starts entering the territory of illegal.

Which makes sense if you think about it. A 5 year old child threatening you with violence is not the same as a 25 year old man with a bat in their hand.

The reason threats of violence online are not illegal is because they have no ability to carry it out. This is actually a large reason why doxxing is such a big deal online. Suddenly, these people DO have the ability to carry out the threats.

If you REALLY want to go at it from that perspective, these companies leaking/selling PII should make them legally liable.

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

#62

Post by xpe »

prepend wrote: post #42
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…

In my experience with HN, many people do not understand even the basics of 1A. Like many people, they have fundamental misconceptions, and they repeat them over and over.

To take just one example on this particular comment page:, I wonder if the person writing this comment understands 1A: "While this looks good on paper, it would severely hinder free speech on these platforms if not already."

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

#63

Post by colejohnson66 »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #51
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Presumably this would lead to this site shutting down. Do you think that's an acceptable trade-off?

This. If you make a website liable for what someone posts, the sites will be much more heavy handed in their moderation approach and start taking down content with even a hint of a problem.

Just look at YouTube with kids. They’ve taken such a heavy handed approach to content moderation regarding kids content simply because of laws like COPPA. But then videos not involving kids get swept up into the mess because the algorithm decided their video is about kids. Even simple 10 second clips of Spongebob get flagged because of this.

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

#64

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #43
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.

Are you familiar with the case that originally prompted Section 230? It would be a pretty serious problem if hedge funds could sue your ISP for letting you say bad things about them. (In fact, without Section 230, ad companies could sue YCombinator for letting you make this very comment.)

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

#66

Post by NoodleIncident »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #41

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 co…

Aren't you describing Parler's failed attempt at pretending they moderate their content?

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

#67

Post by ocdtrekkie »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #51
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Presumably this would lead to this site shutting down. Do you think that's an acceptable trade-off?

First, your presumption is completely bull----. HN isn't ad supported. And every other class of business has normal liability, tech companies are the only business that claims to need magical immunity to lawsuits, and for some reason, people believe them.

Second, if websites shutting down is the tradeoff for harmful websites being able to be sued, yes, absolutely that's acceptable. Websites that propagate mass harm and disinformation need not exist, and their replacements will be better.

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

#68

Post by novok »

Arete314159 wrote: post #60
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?…

I think a more apt metaphor would be, If a bunch of radicals meet at a bar, repeatedly and and loudly state their intention to murder someone, loud enough for all the employees to know, and they also get into bar fights with the people they talk about murdering...would the bar owner & employees be responsible for not intervening? For not reporting them to the police and banning them from the establishment? The answer…

But if they rented private karaoke rooms and you can't hear or see what they're talking about, just that they rent a room regularly, then you wouldn't be eh?

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

#69

Post by grawprog »

The first part of the bill seems reasonable...

This part

>Under the SAFE TECH Act, the word "information" would be swapped out for the word "speech," narrowing the law and potentially erasing liability protections for a range of other illicit information-sharing that happens on online platforms.

I worry about. Who gets to decide what's classed as speech or not? What's the definition of 'speech'?

Will it end up being left to a judge to determine on a case by case basis?

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

#70

Post by munificent »

everdrive wrote: post #14

When I was young, I realized that eventually the problems of the real world would catch up to the internet. It was in the mid-2000s that I realized a well-staffed company, with people working on problems for 8+ hours a day, for years, could always outpace individuals. Just as has been true with all human affairs: better-resourced groups can overpower lesser-resourced groups. It has been true for years now that the pr…

I had this realization later than you.

What finally clicked for me is that power dynamics form a positive feedback loop that naturally compounds inequality. If you have a little more power, the natural thing do with that power is to coerce/force/encourage/persuade others to give you a little more. The longer you let that system iterate, the greater the power imbalance. This is why the majority of human history has had massive inequality.

Every now and then, an event happens that goes against that. For example, WWII destroyed massive amounts of physical infrastructure, so it was a force towards equality. Those with more to lose did lose more. (Heart-breakingly, the pandemic is the exact opposite, since COVID-19 doesn't harm material goods, just people.)

One kind of event is a rapid technological change. These work sort of like a rainstorm for power. All of a sudden, bits of empowerment from the new technology rain down semi-randomly onto humanity. Anyone with a cup to catch it gets some. The early Internet was like this.

But, eventually, the system iterates like it always does and eventually those with a bit more power use it to build the rain catchment systems and gutters to route that new power over to themselves. Sometimes, this gets routed to new powerful people who were the ones who caught a lot of the early rain. But the technology itself ceases to be a force for equality. This is where we are today with the Internet.

Post reply on HN