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

121–126 of 126 posts

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

#121

Post by xpe »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #114
xpe wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm worried this would codify fine power for whatever way the political wind blows It depends on how the legislation is written, which will determine who makes various decisions and how the decisions are made. Can you tell me about examples of legislation that you think have been done well? And what is your idea of 'well done'? Should I interpret your comment as meaning that you don't like arbitrary changes in poli…

>>> It depends on how the legislation is written, which will determine who makes various decisions and how the decisions are made. --- Given the regulation itself this is not a bipartisan effort (this is different from support bipartisan) >>> Can you tell me about examples of legislation that you think have been done well ---I think the constitution is a sound example. Only the takings clause seems to have some pushb…

> You can tie together almost all bad laws passed when they are (a) ... (b) ... (c) ...

Can you provide detailed support for such a claim?

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

#122

Post by eunos »

traveler01 wrote: post #79
eunos wrote: post #57

Bill Clinton said in 2000 that limiting Internet is like nailing jello to the wall. Now, not only China managed to do so, even the US starts trying to nail the jello as well.

Is China really limiting Internet though?

Is not 100%, but enough to nourish homegrown player. As we have seen from the tech war and Twitter mass bans, having a homegrown viable ecosystem is very important.

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

#123

Post by bastawhiz »

coffeefirst wrote: post #104
bastawhiz wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely the truth. I've talked with attorneys about what this would mean for my side hustle (podcast hosting) and their advice is to have tools for doing exhaustive moderation ready to go. The risk of being sued for user content is large enough to be business-ending for startups of my size. I sincerely hope that this is just political theater that never manifests into law. Section 230 is a blessing to the…

Without 230, that's probably correct. But with the specific changes being described, I'm having a hard time understanding how it would affect a podcast hosting service. Can you elaborate?

In the same way as any other publishing platform. Immunity under some subjective (or poorly defined) terms is as good as no immunity at all. How can I know what will lead to wrongful death? I would need to police every piece of uploaded content for anything that I feel could reasonably lead to that.

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

#124

Post by xpe »

fallingknife wrote: post #109
xpe wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The above comment is obviously true, but how much does it advance the conversation? Not much in my opinion, but I'll try to build on it. I'll try to unpack what I think you were getting at. While it is obvious that the comment doesn't say "First Amendment", that is not the end of the matter. When people talk, it is important to think about what they mean in a particular context . That comment very much relates to 1A,…

This isn't a law class, so let's not apply those standards. The 1st amendment itself refers to "freedom of speech" so there is absolutely a principle that exists outside of the 1st amendment. There is absolutely an argument to be made that the scope of the 1st is too narrow to protect freedom of speech in the US.

> This isn't a law class, so let's not apply those standards.

You are missing my point. If you re-read my comment carefully, you will see that I explained in some detail why I'm often disappointed in the quality of discussion here.

Only one part of my comments pertained to an undergraduate law class. I mentioned it not because I expect specialized knowledge of the law, but because I expect a certain amount of preparation before making strong claims. If you make a claim in a law class, you must be ready to support it. You are expected to know the history, arguments, and connection to the topic at hand.

I think many software developers can relate to the need to explain their claims in a work setting. For example, if a developer suggests that an organization switch from technology X to Y, they should expect to be asked why. So, it is not very different from the expectations of a undergraduate law school class.

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

#125

Post by xpe »

prepend wrote: post #116
xpe wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The above comment is obviously true, but how much does it advance the conversation? Not much in my opinion, but I'll try to build on it. I'll try to unpack what I think you were getting at. While it is obvious that the comment doesn't say "First Amendment", that is not the end of the matter. When people talk, it is important to think about what they mean in a particular context . That comment very much relates to 1A,…

I don’t know, usually when I talk and think about freedom of speech, I don’t mean 1A. I mean the principle of free speech that is the idea parent to 1A. I’ll frequently try to think about freedom of speech when trying to work out some community process or way to interact with people and if someone thought I was talking about 1A, I would feel bad for their confusion. I’m not sure how to prevent this in my speech as if…

Thanks for clarifying what you mean. I get it.

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

#126

Post by xpe »

fallingknife wrote: post #109
xpe wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The above comment is obviously true, but how much does it advance the conversation? Not much in my opinion, but I'll try to build on it. I'll try to unpack what I think you were getting at. While it is obvious that the comment doesn't say "First Amendment", that is not the end of the matter. When people talk, it is important to think about what they mean in a particular context . That comment very much relates to 1A,…

This isn't a law class, so let's not apply those standards. The 1st amendment itself refers to "freedom of speech" so there is absolutely a principle that exists outside of the 1st amendment. There is absolutely an argument to be made that the scope of the 1st is too narrow to protect freedom of speech in the US.

> The 1st amendment itself refers to "freedom of speech" so there is absolutely a principle that exists outside of the 1st amendment.

I wouldn't say "absolutely" [1], but yes. At the risk of being too direct: I think we both know this is obvious. Do you have a finer point to make?

> There is absolutely an argument to be made that the scope of the 1st is too narrow to protect freedom of speech in the US.

I wouldn't say "absolutely" [1], but I tend to agree. This does raise a follow-up question: To what degree do you think free speech should be protected in the US? How do you balance it against other principles?

All of this said, I still stand by my commentary above, including (a) the unimpressive quality of argumentation and communication on HN; (b) a lack of understanding of how 1A and free speech interrelate; and (c) people here are not hopeless; they have the intellectual ability to do better -- if they only put a bit more effort into what they put out into the world.

[1] Are you aware of the pitfalls of using "absolutely"? I recommend reading https://www.dailywritingtips.com/absolutely/

Post reply on HN