Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020) • Hacker News Board

Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)

#11

Post by trey-jones » Wed, Nov 02, 2022, 12:04 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #8

slater wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Yes, it's a difficult problem isn't it. On the one hand there are people behaving poorly towards other people, though which people they are and how poorly they are behaving depends on the opinions of each individual. On the other hand the insidious arm of the government reaching into the affairs of a free people and controlling thought by controlling media is not quite a comforting thought either.

As usual, if people would stop being so shitty to each other and greedy for themselves, none of this would even be necessary.

Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)

#12

Post by stevewatson301 » Wed, Nov 02, 2022, 12:19 PM UTC

I don't understand why some people are so hellbent on eliminating Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which would only mean the most reasonable way to have UGC is to have none at all, because anything else leaves a non-zero probability of the UGC website operator (now being considered a publisher) being sued.

This is the only good take on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and the one that I agree with the most; since it would set the First Amendment as the bar for speech on social media, bringing parity to the protections we have elsewhere.

Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)

#13

Post by amadeuspagel » Wed, Nov 02, 2022, 12:20 PM UTC

Section 230 protects every moderated forum.

Maybe it should distinguish between forums, where everyone sees the same content, and social networks, where people choose who to follow and who to block. Maybe social networks should be regulated as common carriers[1].

But simply removing the second paragraph of Section 230, making moderated forums liable for every post, would make them legally unviable.

[1]: https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/carrier.pdf

Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)

#14

Post by stevewatson301 » Wed, Nov 02, 2022, 12:32 PM UTC

amadeuspagel wrote: post #13

Section 230 protects every moderated forum. Maybe it should distinguish between forums, where everyone sees the same content, and social networks, where people choose who to follow and who to block. Maybe social networks should be regulated as common carriers[1]. But simply removing the second paragraph of Section 230, making moderated forums liable for every post, would make them legally unviable. [1]: https://www2.…

Forums are too small of an audience to be even considered by most people, including political leaders considering such regulation, who consider Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit to be the only websites with UGC, and it's difficult to explain that distinction to folks, in my personal experience.

Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)

#15

Post by amadeuspagel » Wed, Nov 02, 2022, 12:34 PM UTC

stevewatson301 wrote: post #14

amadeuspagel wrote: post #13

Section 230 protects every moderated forum. Maybe it should distinguish between forums, where everyone sees the same content, and social networks, where people choose who to follow and who to block. Maybe social networks should be regulated as common carriers[1]. But simply removing the second paragraph of Section 230, making moderated forums liable for every post, would make them legally unviable. [1]: https://www2.…

Forums are too small of an audience to be even considered by most people, including political leaders considering such regulation, who consider Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit to be the only websites with UGC, and it's difficult to explain that distinction to folks, in my personal experience.

Well, it's not just HN and a bunch of vbulletin boards. Every subreddit, every facebook group, every discord server is the kind of forum that section 230 protects. In fact, even if you block people on twitter you are arguably turning the replies to your tweets into a moderated forum. Should that make you liable for them?

Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)

#16

Post by tptacek » Wed, Nov 02, 2022, 12:35 PM UTC

This article from 2020 is making the rounds because David Sacks is in Elon Musk's inner circle and now works at Twitter.

It's an absolute hash of an argument that would mire every American service provider in perpetual litigation. Twitter would be better off with no Section 230 than with one that requires them to prove "false statements of fact" (even the word "fact" in that phrase is a subject of white-hot intense litigation) or even "incitement". It's unlikely that Sacks stands by this analysis today, and more likely that Sacks wrote it believing that he'd never be personally responsible for implementing it.

Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)

#17

Post by tptacek » Wed, Nov 02, 2022, 12:37 PM UTC

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #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.” Cer…

He's got "incitement" wrong too; he's concluded that incitement is about "imminence", which is a factor, but the larger factor is intent. If Twitter was held to the 1A standard on incitement, it would be unable to block a great deal of content that was likely to cause imminent lawless action.

Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)

#18

Post by magicalist » Wed, Nov 02, 2022, 1:10 PM UTC

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #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.” Cer…

> 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.

You're right that it's a very narrowly defined carve out that has since been narrowed further, but it's definitely from the 1940s from the cited Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)

#19

Post by leereeves » Wed, Nov 02, 2022, 1:11 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #17

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #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.” Cer…

He's got "incitement" wrong too; he's concluded that incitement is about "imminence", which is a factor, but the larger factor is intent. If Twitter was held to the 1A standard on incitement, it would be unable to block a great deal of content that was likely to cause imminent lawless action.

He discussed that: intent is implied by the phrases "directed to" and "advocacy of".

Re: Section 230: Mend it, don’t end it (2020)

#20

Post by tptacek » Wed, Nov 02, 2022, 1:12 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #19

tptacek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's got "incitement" wrong too; he's concluded that incitement is about "imminence", which is a factor, but the larger factor is intent. If Twitter was held to the 1A standard on incitement, it would be unable to block a great deal of content that was likely to cause imminent lawless action.

He discussed that: intent is implied by the phrases "directed to" and "advocacy of".

"Advocacy of" and "intent" aren't the same standard either!

Again: if Twitter was held to the 1A standard, there is a great deal of content likely to cause imminent lawless action that they would be unable to block.