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

71–80 of 126 posts

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

#71

Post by Scoundreller »

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…

> In its infancy, the internet was an "island of sanity," a (socially and intellectually) secure enclave from the real world.

Just find another place on the internet with a barrier to entry that hasn’t been eliminated yet.

Back to Gopher and IRC I guess.

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

#72

Post by devonbleak »

cmdli wrote: post #53
0xB31B1B wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the "meet at a bar to plot a murder" metaphor isn't at all how the the tech companies faciliate these things. Its more like if the group meets at a bar, and exclusively communicated through with each other through the bartender. In that case, would the bartender have an obligation to tell law enforcement that a group at the bar was planning a murder? I think so.

I think "communicating through the barkeeper" makes the barkeeper's involvement sound much more intentional than it actually would be. It's more like if a group regularly gathered at the bar, using the barkeeper's space and supplies, and planned a murder. The barkeeper might have a responsibility to listen in to the conversation and report if they are planning a crime, and the group is using the barkeeper's space to…

But the platforms have perfect knowledge of the text content of these conversations. It's not unreasonable to say they have near-perfect knowledge of the graphic and A/V content also - that stuff is easily automatically parsed at this point and they're likely already doing that parsing. Hell it's part of their business model for increasing the value of their ads.

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

#73

Post by bilbo0s »

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?…

would the bar be responsible if they didn't intervene?

What state do you live in?

It's even worse for tech companies, because of the way people use these services.

As a completely hypothetical example that I'm in no way condoning, let's say someone in a forum posted a comment like, "I hate n-words. We should off them all." The comments in the forum degenerate from there, and include posts of the form, "YY black church starts service at 10:30 on Sunday." and, " Oh yeah, you mean the N-word church at XXXX South Whatever Blvd in Charleston SC?"

I think you see where I'm going with this. Taken separately, each of those comments is either non-specific, or not threats at all. But taken together, it's a different story.

Now, imagine this hypothetical tech firm ran ads on their forums. It wouldn't even matter whether or not they ran ads on the forum in question, because the very fact that they decide where to run ads would make them a publisher and ineligible for section 230 protections.

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

#74

Post by fallingknife »

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…

Your quote makes it clear that "to whom and what 1A applies" is up for interpretation. While the wording of 1A specifically only prevents congress from passing laws that restrict freedom of speech, it has been extended by the courts to cover the entire federal government, and state governments in order to protect freedom of speech. There is no reason that in the future, 1A couldn't be extended further.

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

#75

Post by colejohnson66 »

novok wrote: post #68
Arete314159 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

GP’s argument is hinged on the premise that websites can “hear” everything posted. Just because a human doesn’t see it doesn’t mean the system didn’t. They already scan all posts for their targeted ad system.

Whether that’s a valid argument or not is up to you.

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

#76

Post by kart23 »

I used to believe that 230 is a good thing in all cases. But I have absolutely no sympathy for the people who post others addresses or family members information with the intent of bringing harm. That is one case I think it goes way too far, and social media platforms should absolutely be held liable for that type of harassment which can cross into the real world. This bill seems like a good step in that direction.

And I do think platforms should be able to get sued and held liable for targeted violence against individuals that is incited on their platforms. The reuters article is light on information, but heres something that goes into a bit more detail.

https://royalexaminer.com/warner-announces-the-safe-tech-act...

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

#77

Post by gruez »

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…

>The answer is yes. Yes, they would be liable.

under what legal theory? A quick search says no. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/3671/at-what-point-d...

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

#78

Post by fallingknife »

xpe wrote: post #62
prepend wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

That comment makes no mention of the first amendment.

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

#80

Post by dangerbird2 »

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?

Obviously how a social media platform moderates itself has virtually nothing to do with 1A. Limiting or eliminating section 230 would place more legal liability on the platforms over users' content. They would have a much greater incentive to limit users speech whenever there is the slightest risk of putting the platform in legal jeopardy. The fact that social media platforms aren't considered "publishers" means that the financial benefit for having a quasi free-speech community overrides their legal risk.
Post reply on HN