Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)
1–10 of 59 posts
Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)
#2This is the most well thought out takes on Section 230 I've read yet. David Sacks is publicly conservative and I disagree with him on a lot. But he's also a lawyer and very, very smart.
Worth a read, no matter where you stand on the issue.
Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)
#3> Fighting Words. In the 1942 case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes “fighting words,” which are defined as speech that “tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” through the use of “personally abusive” language that “when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction.” Certainly, all racist, misogynist, homophobic, and other slurs could be folded into this category and prohibited by social media sites.
This entire section is just wrong. Fighting words are extremely narrowly defined, to the point where if you don't get punched in the face within a few minutes of saying something, it is not fighting words under law. The original definition of fighting words was laid out at a time when honor duels were still common, and that is the environment under which they were defined. Since then, every higher court decision referring to them has narrowed, not expanded their definition. There is no way a slur on the internet can be construed as fighting words as the law currently exist.
Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)
#4I don't see how anything will happen on 230. Conservatives want to change it to allow any kind of speech including racism and fake news and the platform can't censor it and liberals want to ban anything they consider hate speech or "not woke" speech.
Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)
#5I don't see how anything will happen on 230. Conservatives want to change it to allow any kind of speech including racism and fake news and the platform can't censor it and liberals want to ban anything they consider hate speech or "not woke" speech.
As said somewhere else on here, "i've never seen 'hate speech' that isn't actual hate speech"
Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)
#6If these guidelines are implemented, I predict "Town Square" apps like Twitter will decline in favor of sub-networks like Discord or Substack.
> We will protect any speech that is protected under the First Amendment.
This will likely include speech that people and advertisers find objectionable, and will consequently want to disassociate from. There is a lot of First Amendment speech that people don't want to have shouted at them when they're trying just trying to go about their lives, or keep up with the media. Think about what HN would be like if the mods allowed all First Amendment speech in the comments.
> We will double down on our authenticity rules and procedures.
It's not clear if this requires people to use their real names + verify their identities, but if so it's dangerous for free speech. Pseudonyms can be a valuable way of enabling people to speak freely. Forcing people to use their own names also increases the risk of their being targeted by harassing speech (which defenders will claim is protected by the 1st Amendment). Again, people will likely leave for more curated communities or anonymous communities rather than endure it.
> We will provide users with the tools they need to curate content for themselves. For instance, we will give users the ability to hide or delete offensive comments to their posts.
I have these tools available for SMS and email, but it's exhausting to manage, and they've been rendered useless by the sheer volume of spam. For the average user, this is forcing them to take on a lot of work to protect themselves from spam and harassment. Many will just quit rather than add another channel they have to filter and manage.
If a "public square" (and I'm not convinced Twitter is a public square in the sense people say) becomes unruly and fails to provide a well regulated commons, people will depart for communities that regulate the way they want (like Hacker News or amenable Discord Servers)
Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)
#7The First Amendment applies only to government action. This author is seriously confused.
Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)
#8I don't see how anything will happen on 230. Conservatives want to change it to allow any kind of speech including racism and fake news and the platform can't censor it and liberals want to ban anything they consider hate speech or "not woke" speech.
As said somewhere else on here, "i've never seen 'hate speech' that isn't actual hate speech"
Most of the content featured on social media is hate speech. Hate drives engagement so it's amplified.
And most of that hate is still considered acceptable even under the most restrictive policies.
There's hate speech like ageism, misandry, and racism against white people, which are technically covered by the policies but generally overlooked.
Then there's the shifting tide of hatred against people for a variety of other reasons. Like Elon Musk at the moment. Sometimes this even becomes harassment against private individuals (as in, not public figures) like when reddit falsely accused the wrong person of being the Boston Bomber, or the false allegations against the kids from Covington Catholic High School.
And of course the perennial political battle, which has somehow become even more partisan and hateful thanks to social media.
So I think that claims that changing Section 230 will unleash a torrent of hatred on social media and make it unusable are rather ill informed. Social media is already like that.
What it might do is give more people an opportunity to interact with people they hate and perhaps learn that they were wrong.
Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)
#9This is the most well thought out takes on Section 230 I've read yet. David Sacks is publicly conservative and I disagree with him on a lot. But he's also a lawyer and very, very smart. Worth a read, no matter where you stand on the issue.
Particularly since Sacks is in Musk's close adviser circle for Twitter, and is even mentioned as a potential CEO.
Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)
#10The First Amendment applies only to government action. This author is seriously confused.
The First Amendment applies only to government, but the idea of free speech applies to everyone. It has also come out recently that social media platforms are receiving directions from the US government about what content to take down, making them state actors.