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

People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 152 posts

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#31

Post by jmyeet »

In the US, this all stems from Section 230 (of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) that provided a safe harbor for companies for user-generated content. There are some requirements for this like a process for legal takedowns. Section 230 is generally a good thing as it was (and is) prohibitively expensive if not outright impossible to monitor every post and every comment.

But what changed in the last two decades or so is the newsfeed as well as other forms of recommendation (eg suggested videos on Youtube). Colloquially we tend to lump all of these together as "the algorithm".

Tech companies have very succcessfully spread the propaganda that even with "the algorithm" they're still somehow "content neutral". If certain topics are pushed to more users because ragebait = engagement then that's just "the algorithm". But who programmed the algorithm? Why? What were the explicit goals? What did and didn't ship to arrive at that behavior?

The truth is that "the algirthm" reflects the wishes of the leaders and shareholders of the company. As such, for purposes of Section 230, it's arguable that such platforms are no longer content neutral.

So what we have in the US is really the worst of both worlds. Private companies are responsible for moderation but they kowtow to the administration to reflect the content the administration wants to push or suppress.

Make no mistake, the only reason Tiktok was banned and is now being sold is because the government doesn't have the same control they have over FB, IG or Twitter.

So a survey of what people want here is kind of meaningless because people just don't understand the question.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#32

Post by gwd »

bradley13 wrote: post #18

Several European governments have jailed people for social media posts. Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand. As for falsehoods: some people will be mistaken, some people will lie, and sometimes sarcasm will be misunderstood. Why should anyone be liable? It is on each individual to inform themselves, and to decide what to believe and what to disrega…

> It doesn't say "if your opinion is correct".

Opinions cannot be right or wrong.

> It makes no exceptions whatsoever, and that is what we need to strive for.

It certainly does. See libel / defamation / perjury / false representation / fraud / false advertising / trademark infringement.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#33

Post by yupyupyups »

bradley13 wrote: post #18

Several European governments have jailed people for social media posts. Many Europeans support this - they don't understand how government censorship can quickly get out of hand. As for falsehoods: some people will be mistaken, some people will lie, and sometimes sarcasm will be misunderstood. Why should anyone be liable? It is on each individual to inform themselves, and to decide what to believe and what to disrega…

This is all true, with a few exceptions. For example, incitement to violence or false allegations that do serious reputational damage. It's not sustainable to allow exactly all speech.

Although I mostly agree, I just wanted to make explicit that nuance.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#34

Post by tiahura »

goalieca wrote: post #13
jgeada wrote: post #2

I think this might be a misinterpretation of the word "responsible". If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. That is what most people mean by "responsible". Government sets the rules, and if someone fail to comply, there are consequences against those responsible. Government isn't responsible, it is holding them resp…

> If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. Does the government then setup a ministry of truth? Who gets to decide that?

In most common law countries, juries fill that roll.

Currently, in the US, internet companies get a special exemption from the laws that apply to other media companies via the DMCA. If traditional media companies publish libelous material, they get sued. Facebook and Google get a "Case Dismissed" pass. Most people look at the internet and conclude that hasn't worked out very well.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#35

Post by floundy »

oytis wrote: post #17
floundy wrote: post #7

Actually, no, reasonable people do not want either platforms or governments to moderate content. Who defines what "problematic content" is?

Unmoderated platforms are pretty much useless. Having said that, I'd prefer governments to stay away from either moderating or forcing platforms to moderate content

Perhaps there's simply no middle ground between something like Voat which turned into a gathering place of bonafide racists, and something like Reddit which is essentially just a confirmation bias hugbox. If there is, it's certainly not a profitable product.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#36

Post by lukan »

Xylakant wrote: post #21
goalieca wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. Does the government then setup a ministry of truth? Who gets to decide that?

Are you implying that there’s no posts on social media platforms that are plain and verifiably wrong and that any such decision needs to be made by a government created ministry of truth? There’s no middle ground? Maybe such a thing like a court? If I state here plain and as a fact that golieca eats little children for breakfast and slaughters kittens for fun, could @dang not look at both a statement from you and one…

"If I state here plain and as a fact that golieca eats little children for breakfast and slaughters kittens for fun, could @dang not look at both a statement from you and one from me and see if I have sufficient proof?"

Nah, he would just (shadow)ban you.

But in general we had that debate long and broad on what truth means with Covid. Who decides what the scientific consensus is for instance. (I don't remember a crystal clear outcome, though). But in case of doubt, we still have courts to decide.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#37

Post by Xylakant »

floundy wrote: post #23
Xylakant wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are posting on a platform that has a moderation policy and takes active measures to to moderate away problematic content. The guidelines are here https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and they clearly state what content is off limits.

How is this a "gotcha" when I'm on the internet I'm being forced to use? I pick the most agreeable platforms. I like that HN filters out politics, sports, and celebrities, it's more like a themed forum than an open board. HN doesn't deem these topics as "problematic", simply as off-topic. Anyway my point was "problematic content" is often used as a buzzword by censorship happy people, and ends up being synonymous wit…

If you read the guidelines, there’s quite a bit about being polite and not inciting flame wars, not only off topic items. It regularly happens that posts or even users get removed for that reason.

There are platforms that have much less strict standards with regards to that - yet you consider this the more agreeable platform. Maybe the reason is that it’s actually nicer to have a conversation in a place where you don’t need to deal with an asshole that starts yelling and insulting everyone at the table.

Think about this in real life: would you want to frequent a place where the loudest asshole gets to insult everyone present or would you rather go to a bar where at some point the Barkeeper steps in and sorts things out?

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#38

Post by DrScientist »

I think it's a bit more nuanced that this.

Ultimately authors should be held responsible for content - the governments role here is setting the laws, and funding the law enforcement mechanisms ( police and courts etc ), and the platform's role is to enable enforcement ( doing takedowns or enabling tracing of perpetrators ).

Obviously one of the challenges here is the platforms are transnational, and the laws are national - but that's the just a cost of doing business.

However this doesn't absolve the platforms from responsibility for content if they are involved in promoting content. If a platform actively promotes content - then in my view they shift from a common carrier to a publisher and thus all the normal publisher responsibilities apply.

Pretending that it's not possible to be technical responsible for platform amplification is a not the answer. You can't create something that you are responsible for, that creates harm and then claim it's not your problem because you can't fix it.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#39

Post by dfxm12 »

goalieca wrote: post #13
jgeada wrote: post #2

I think this might be a misinterpretation of the word "responsible". If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. That is what most people mean by "responsible". Government sets the rules, and if someone fail to comply, there are consequences against those responsible. Government isn't responsible, it is holding them resp…

> If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. Does the government then setup a ministry of truth? Who gets to decide that?

At a minimum, keep in mind, perjury, libel and slander get litigated in courts of law. No ministry of truth is required in these cases.

Re: People want platforms, not governments, to be responsible for moderating content

#40

Post by philipallstar »

jgeada wrote: post #2

I think this might be a misinterpretation of the word "responsible". If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. That is what most people mean by "responsible". Government sets the rules, and if someone fail to comply, there are consequences against those responsible. Government isn't responsible, it is holding them resp…

> If a platform lies or spread malicious content, it seems people want the platform to have the liability and consequences for the malfeasance. That is what most people mean by "responsible".

The platform isn't lying, any more than if I write "1 equals 2" on a letter and send it via the mail system to someone else is the mail system lying.

Post reply on HN