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

Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 116 posts

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#101

Post by burlesona »

dilap wrote: post #94
burlesona wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s false. There has always been a difference between freedom to say what you want and freedom from consequences. The famous adage “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Newspapers are liable for libel suits and other legal remedies if they publish false and damaging information. I think it’s fair to consider Facebook a publisher when their algorithms take content and distribute it to the world better than…

If you're "free" to do something, but only with consequences, you're not actually free. If you have the belief that the best possible outcomes can be achieved by open discussion of ideas, then any sort of consequences for speech, be it social opprobrium, being blacklisted from jobs, having social media accounts closed, being blacklisted from web-hosting, etc., are all suppressing the open discussion of ideas, and thu…

You're ascribing beliefs to me that I don't hold. There are two fundamentally different things at play here.

First, I _do_ believe in freedom of speech, in the sense that any individual should be allowed to say what they think and that should be largely free of legal ramifications.

However I do think there are limits to this, and specifically I don't think that you should be allowed to blatantly lie without any risk of consequences. This is the standard that publishers are held to, they can basically publish whatever they want so long as they can demonstrate reasonable evidence that it is true.

On the other hand, there is a deeply toxic "thought censorship" going on right now, which I cannot describe as well as this article does: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i...

I couldn't be more opposed to this "thought police" movement that is growing largely on the left.

But to preserve a reasonable middle ground between "unlimited free speech" which includes blatant deception with no consequences and the Orwellian thought police, we do have to have some standards of what is acceptable and what can get you in trouble. To me that standard is truth supported by evidence.

And all I am arguing is that social media should be held to the same standards as traditional media, that when their claims are unsubstantiated they can face legal consequences.

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#102

Post by carapace »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #98
carapace wrote: post #52

> any platform providing secure end-to-end encryption would face a torrent of litigation I do not see this. By definition content transmitted with end-to-end encryption cannot be moderated. How would anyone but the sender and receiver know that a given message contains "illegal content"? (I put "illegal content" in quotes because it makes my skin crawl, even though in practice I think some content should be suppresse…

Under this law, a host will be immune from liability only if they "assist government authorities to obtain content (i.e., evidence) in a comprehensible, readable, and usable format". A host that uses end-to-end encryption would not meet this requirement and would therefore not be immune from liability.

If I encrypt an email and send it over the internet would my ISP become liable?

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#103

Post by carapace »

akersten wrote: post #99
carapace wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read up on that and, while it's obviously a naked power-grab and bad law IMO, it also seems to me to have the same loop-hole. I don't understand how a service provider can be anything but a carrier if the traffic is E2E encrypted.

Facebook carries both messaging traffic and user-generated content. If they support E2E encryption in their messenger, the threat is that they are not "following best practices for law enforcement intercept" and risk losing their protections over the non-E2E user-generated content on their main site. The confusion is understandable because the two are unrelated in any technical capacity, but the DoJ seeks to twist th…

Couldn't they split into two companies?

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#104

Post by dilap »

burlesona wrote: post #101
dilap wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're "free" to do something, but only with consequences, you're not actually free. If you have the belief that the best possible outcomes can be achieved by open discussion of ideas, then any sort of consequences for speech, be it social opprobrium, being blacklisted from jobs, having social media accounts closed, being blacklisted from web-hosting, etc., are all suppressing the open discussion of ideas, and thu…

You're ascribing beliefs to me that I don't hold. There are two fundamentally different things at play here. First, I _do_ believe in freedom of speech, in the sense that any individual should be allowed to say what they think and that should be largely free of legal ramifications. However I do think there are limits to this, and specifically I don't think that you should be allowed to blatantly lie without any risk…

Perhaps I misunderstood your position. Reading your original comment, it is not as I remembered it -- either I misunderstood, or the comment has evolved.

Regarding this:

> And all I am arguing is that social media should be held to the same standards as traditional media

If I were to slander someone on HN, HN should be held responsible? It seems unworkable in practice, since HN is an automated system, more akin to the post office or a public bulletin than a traditional publisher.

(Though, obviously, it's sort of in the middle, since they will moderate particularly obnoxious comments.)

But if you hold them liable, it would be unreasonable legal risk to assume to allow the comment section to continue to exist, no?

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#105

Post by lliamander »

ashtonkem wrote: post #97
lliamander wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If readers can't tell, then Twitter should label it "satire" not "manipulated content". EDIT: just speculation, but by mislabeling the tweet, I wonder if Twitter could be exposing itself to a libel lawsuit.

No, they have not. Even without 230 this wouldn’t be libelous for a huge number of reasons. The bar for libel is not “someone is offended”, even if that someone is the president. The contortions that people keep going through to find a way to make Twitter liable is both getting old, and frankly it’s embarrassing.

My point has nothing to do with being offended or with section 230. The point is: if Twitter is labeling something as "manipulated content" (implying an earnest attempt deceive) when the content is in fact satire, then Twitter is itself making misleading claims.

It's like when Snopes was "fact-checking" the Babylon Bee (a satirical news website). They initially labeled some of their articles as false, but then re-labeled it more appropriately as satire after receiving push-back.[1]

I'm not even saying Twitter should be sued here. But Twitter is now engaged in speech of their own, rather than just moderating a platform for other peoples' speech.

[1]https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-lawmaker-go-back-c...

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#106

Post by ashtonkem »

lliamander wrote: post #105
ashtonkem wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they have not. Even without 230 this wouldn’t be libelous for a huge number of reasons. The bar for libel is not “someone is offended”, even if that someone is the president. The contortions that people keep going through to find a way to make Twitter liable is both getting old, and frankly it’s embarrassing.

My point has nothing to do with being offended or with section 230. The point is: if Twitter is labeling something as "manipulated content" (implying an earnest attempt deceive) when the content is in fact satire, then Twitter is itself making misleading claims. It's like when Snopes was "fact-checking" the Babylon Bee (a satirical news website). They initially labeled some of their articles as false, but then re-lab…

You’re changing the subject. You argued that Twitter might be liable for libel. In order for that to be true, then the speech in question must be libelous.

So, even ignoring 230, is mislabeling a satirical argument as false libelous? It is without a single doubt not libelous.

First of all, defamation (the larger category that includes libel) usually requires a statement of fact, whereas something being satire vs. just plain wrong is a matter of opinion. It is very hard to sue over matters of opinion, by design. This is why saying “the president is stupid” or “the president is racist” aren’t libelous; those statements are opinions and not objective statements of fact.

Second, defamation either needs some form of harm, or it needs to be in a narrow category of statements that are defamation “per se”. The latter category is very narrow and not relevant here, so we can focus on the former. What, pray tell, harm did the president suffer?

Finally, the president is a public figure, and the bar for defamation against a public figure is very very high. The standard is “actual malice”, which requires that Twitter knew that they were lying and did it anyways. If Twitter genuinely believed that the video was not satire, even if you think that’s dumb, then they have a rock solid defense against defamation.

So no, this was not libel. Nowhere close.

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#107

Post by lliamander »

akersten wrote: post #100
lliamander wrote: post #72

While I am concerned about the potential negative consequences to altering section 230, there are several elements in the DOJ proposal that I think would be excellent ideas: > 3. Promoting Competition A third reform proposal is to clarify that federal antitrust claims are not covered by Section 230 immunity. Over time, the avenues for engaging in both online commerce and speech have concentrated in the hands of a few…

The outcome of "breaking up advertising monopolies" can be achieved with existing anti-trust law, without cannibalizing an existing protection that benefits every UGC website large and small. > Is it too much to ask for social media companies to actually abide by their TOS? How often have we seen people complain (outside the realm of politics) about getting banned without explanation or appeal? A physical business ca…

> The outcome of "breaking up advertising monopolies" can be achieved with existing anti-trust law, without cannibalizing an existing protection that benefits every UGC website large and small.

I don't think it requires cannibalizing existing protections in order prevent section 230 from being invoked in anti-trust cases. And for the record, I don't think I agree with all of the DOJ recommendations, but I think there may be room for improvement.

> A physical business can trespass you for any non-protected-class reason they want. Online, one should expect no different treatment.

I'm not entering into a legal agreement simply by entering a physical business. However, terms of service are a legal agreement. A lot of tech businesses seem to be under the impression that a TOS doesn't actual impose any obligations on them, but in fact it does.

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#108

Post by lliamander »

ashtonkem wrote: post #106
lliamander wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point has nothing to do with being offended or with section 230. The point is: if Twitter is labeling something as "manipulated content" (implying an earnest attempt deceive) when the content is in fact satire, then Twitter is itself making misleading claims. It's like when Snopes was "fact-checking" the Babylon Bee (a satirical news website). They initially labeled some of their articles as false, but then re-lab…

You’re changing the subject. You argued that Twitter might be liable for libel . In order for that to be true, then the speech in question must be libelous. So, even ignoring 230, is mislabeling a satirical argument as false libelous? It is without a single doubt not libelous. First of all, defamation (the larger category that includes libel) usually requires a statement of fact, whereas something being satire vs. ju…

> You’re changing the subject.

Um, no? I agree the subject of this conversation is whether Twitter is liable for libel.

> So no, this was not libel. Nowhere close.

OK, so that's a an answer to my question as to whether it exposes Twitter to libel. Thanks!

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#109

Post by pjkundert »

manfredo wrote: post #74
pjkundert wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wondering how you jumped from "K-means Clustering", which implements much stronger and more fairly applied moderation than any current scheme, to "total removal of moderation".

K-means clustering is insufficient to guarantee that no content that results in lawsuits or charges gets uploaded. These are sites with a billions of users. A failure rate of even 0.001% still means a lot of content that can result in charges or lawsuits gets through. Removal of section 230 means companies can even be criminally liable for things their users post. It's not a question of fairness at that point.

Of course not - since that is an impossible task. We can’t even build LEGO sites that make it impossible for kids to build and upload genitalia. Nor should we - if you don’t want your kids seeing LEGO dicks, help them downvote a bunch of users that upload those, and voila, they don’t see any posts by any users in that cluster. Conversely, your “beevis and butthead” kid sees nothing but dicks. Fill your boots...

The only requirement is long-lives identities. Create a new identity anytime you want; it’s just that no veteran users will see anything you post until you establish a long track record of reasoned debate, and work yourself through clusters with logarithmic aging baskets, until you finally “graduate” to being seen by people of substance in your target audience. And, you can easily move yourself out again, by a few hot-headed off-the-cuff remarks. Welcome to the real world! Actions have consequences.

The thing about being an unbiased conduit vs. a editorializing publisher is significant; if your clustering algorithms are standardized and published, and aren’t subject to editorial interference — you’re safe from lawsuits, just like the phone companies.

It is unlikely that you will be able to escape from the requirement to give up metadata on users to the FBI — just like the phone company.

Removal of section 230 for companies that have proven themselves unworthy by clearly political editing of users posting feeds deserve what they’re going to get, when they lose these protections, in my opinion.

If they want to run an opinionated newspaper, then they’ve chosen the heavy lifting required to ensure no rando publishes an illegal article. Tough beans.

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#110

Post by manfredo »

pjkundert wrote: post #109
manfredo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

K-means clustering is insufficient to guarantee that no content that results in lawsuits or charges gets uploaded. These are sites with a billions of users. A failure rate of even 0.001% still means a lot of content that can result in charges or lawsuits gets through. Removal of section 230 means companies can even be criminally liable for things their users post. It's not a question of fairness at that point.

Of course not - since that is an impossible task. We can’t even build LEGO sites that make it impossible for kids to build and upload genitalia. Nor should we - if you don’t want your kids seeing LEGO dicks, help them downvote a bunch of users that upload those, and voila, they don’t see any posts by any users in that cluster. Conversely, your “beevis and butthead” kid sees nothing but dicks. Fill your boots... The o…

> The only requirement is long-lives identities. Create a new identity anytime you want; it’s just that no veteran users will see anything you post until you establish a long track record of reasoned debate, and work yourself through clusters with logarithmic aging baskets, until you finally “graduate” to being seen by people of substance in your target audience. And, you can easily move yourself out again, by a few hot-headed off-the-cuff remarks. Welcome to the real world! Actions have consequences.

And? None of this changes the fact that without Section 230 protections, companies are dead. There's simply no way to reliably prevent any and all illegal content from being posted. Sites like HN could not exist. There's no way Paul Graham, or whoever actually owns HN, is going to risk criminal charges to keep the forum running.

> It is unlikely that you will be able to escape from the requirement to give up metadata on users to the FBI — just like the phone company.

Giving metadata to law enforcement never had anything to do with Section 230. All section 230 says is, people hosting content are not liable for content created by other people.

> Removal of section 230 for companies that have proven themselves unworthy by clearly political editing of users posting feeds deserve what they’re going to get, when they lose these protections, in my opinion.

> If they want to run an opinionated newspaper, then they’ve chosen the heavy lifting required to ensure no rando publishes an illegal article. Tough beans.

So it's not a blanket removal. It's a targeted removal of section 230 protections from sites that are perceived to have biased moderation.

This is even worse. Now politicians can go to Facebook or YouTube and say, "hey, you better promote positive content about me and negative content about my opponents or I'm going to strip your Section 230 protections." Such a change to Section 230 likely won't lead to less biased sites, it'll lead to even more biased sites as they lick the boots of politicians to keep their protections. There's nothing stopping a government from claiming that k-clusters are biased. This mechanism of some sites getting liability protections and others not getting them is rife for abuse.

Post reply on HN