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

Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 549 posts

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#141

Post by SamBam »

Aunche wrote: post #111
cratermoon wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further, why do we continue to accept the fiction that rules and laws apply to the elite as for the masses? Even the not-so-elite, the Stanford swimmer who brutally raped and assaulted Chanel Miller, though convicted, was given light sentence because of his "bright future", according to the judge.

Brock Turner wasn't elite in any sense besides his acceptance into Stanford, which had been revoked. His father was an electrical engineer and his mom was a nurse. Also, the judge who made the ruling was fired.

GP referred to "not-so-elite." In this case, the small bit of "eliteness" would be white, male, athlete (All-American), upper middle class, accepted into a good college.

And that's probably enough to justify saying he has a "bright future," in this country and day and age.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#142

Post by pmyteh »

hunterb123 wrote: post #109
pmyteh wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. All that s.230 does is declare that platforms are not the 'publisher or speaker' of content provided by another 'information content provider'. It isn't a common carrier provision, so platforms are allowed to make whatever decisions they like about which people they're willing to host, or what TOS/AUP they want to enforce. For such a simple provision, it's astonishing how many people are writing bad (and sometime…

Many discussions are explicitly about what S230 ought to be though, not what it is. Most discussions I've seen start out by stating it was made for a 1996 bulletin board and is dated. It's long overdue to handle this blanket immunity that's being abused by social media behemoths. You don't have to be a lawyer to know something is a bad law and something is being abused.

Sure. And people writing 's.230 allows Facebook to have its cake and eat it, by allowing them to control their content and yet have immunity from responsibility for that which they choose to leave up' have a point. But there's an awful lot of people arguing that this or that moderation decision means that Facebook 'have now moved from being a platform to a publisher' and should be sued. Normally when Facebook have taken down something the commentator agrees with, or have left up something they think is harmful.

s.230 has no platform/publisher trade-off. If you're an intermediary and not the original information provider you are expressly not the speaker or publisher, irrespective of your editorial choices. That's the whole point of the provision. And it's really straightforward. A lot of people seem to want to muddy the waters, and they shouldn't.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#143

Post by criddell »

pmyteh wrote: post #45
caseysoftware wrote: post #37

How does this track against Section 230? Now that there is concrete evidence that moderators are exempting people from the rules - aka selectively enforcing their own TOS/AUP - does that change their standing and protections?

No. All that s.230 does is declare that platforms are not the 'publisher or speaker' of content provided by another 'information content provider'. It isn't a common carrier provision, so platforms are allowed to make whatever decisions they like about which people they're willing to host, or what TOS/AUP they want to enforce. For such a simple provision, it's astonishing how many people are writing bad (and sometime…

In what sense is Facebook not a publisher? Their algorithm acts as an editor, choosing what to show me. If they had a simple chronological feed, then the platform argument would make sense.

If the NYT created a service where the articles I see were selected algorithmically, would they suddenly not be a publisher?

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#144

Post by corobo »

lapetitejort wrote: post #130
corobo wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in my 30s and a friendly email (from a person not relating to business) has never existed in my life haha Man I'd love it if I could communicate socially via email, nobody I know would go for it

Honest question: have you tried writing first? I communicate with a few people via email every few months. It might start with a forwarded email, or just a quick how-do-you-do, then it deepens into long multi-paragraph replies over the course of days. Being able to sit down to write and rewrite what's been going on without someone watching the little typing bubble means I can get more in-depth with how I've been feel…

I would feel kinda silly asking for someone's email address over a chat messenger, but you are correct there's no attempt my side either. "nobody would go for it" is an assumption on my part

I'll make a point to give it a go :)

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#145

Post by pkilgore »

owl_troupe wrote: post #135
runako wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but Section 230 reads pretty clearly to me. Which part of 230 do you think might apply here? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

The distinction lies in whether the service provider has rendered themselves a "publisher" under 230. The protection has historically been broadly interpreted but, in theory, Facebook could lose the protection if it chose, selectively, what content to promote or remove in violation of its own public TOS. Generally: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10306

You have case law for this claim? Or hell, I'll take a quote from your "source" you think supports it.

(that's a trick question: No such case exists. What you say is not the law -- for anyone interested in a more-entertaining version summarizing the state of the law in this area than court decisions and statues, check out https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...)

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#146

Post by linuxftw »

dogleash wrote: post #21

>“We are not actually doing what we say we do publicly,” said the confidential review. Why do we even have the collective fiction where corporate messaging around a sore topic is treated as trustworthy? Especially with companies that we know lie all the fucking time?

Clearly we need to setup the Social Media Agency and regulate them. We'll staff the agency with high level political appointments comprised entirely of Twitter and Facebook executives.

Works for the FDA, anyway.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#147

Post by gkop »

Aunche wrote: post #111
cratermoon wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further, why do we continue to accept the fiction that rules and laws apply to the elite as for the masses? Even the not-so-elite, the Stanford swimmer who brutally raped and assaulted Chanel Miller, though convicted, was given light sentence because of his "bright future", according to the judge.

Brock Turner wasn't elite in any sense besides his acceptance into Stanford, which had been revoked. His father was an electrical engineer and his mom was a nurse. Also, the judge who made the ruling was fired.

> All-American swimmer

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/3...

Athletics are another sense in which he was elite.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#148

Post by caseysoftware »

runako wrote: post #41
caseysoftware wrote: post #37

How does this track against Section 230? Now that there is concrete evidence that moderators are exempting people from the rules - aka selectively enforcing their own TOS/AUP - does that change their standing and protections?

IANAL, but Section 230 reads pretty clearly to me. Which part of 230 do you think might apply here? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

I have some theories but was hoping someone better informed than me would comment so I could learn more first and come to a more thoughtful position even if it's "not applicable".

But hey, your easily googlable link is useful too.

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#149

Post by paulluuk »

threatofrain wrote: post #127

I’m not sure how we can ever expect FB to treat everyone fairly; there isn’t a system on earth which does so, including any judiciary ever. Imagine that I were treated the same as a president or king.

Why should you be treated worse than a president or king?

Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules

#150

Post by bambax »

josefresco wrote: post #88
donatj wrote: post #18

I don't understand the way their enforcement works. I've reported videos of people literally setting live animals on fire and been told there was no violation, but my wife called someone a "loser" and got a week long ban.

My wife (an American) also got flagged for saying "Americans are selfish". She then made a post about our RV (camper) asking about sewer "hook ups" at a campground and was flagged for posting what looked like a sex ad. We (the kids and I) now lovingly call her "hate speech Mom".

> We (the kids and I) now lovingly call her "hate speech Mom".

Hook-up mom would be better.

Post reply on HN