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

111–116 of 116 posts

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

#111

Post by matheusmoreira »

carapace wrote: post #102
matheusmoreira wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The host is required only to "assist" the authorities so I don't think they'd be liable for that. The encryption process was under your control and short of disabling your internet access or cracking your machine there's nothing they can do about it. If they encrypted your email themselves on your behalf and threw the key away so that authorities couldn't get to it, they might be liable.

Now that I think about it, sending malicious updates to a router might be one way they could be required to assist the authorities in their quest for lawful access...

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

#112

Post by burlesona »

dilap wrote: post #104
burlesona wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

HN is very actively moderated, so I think it might be able to exist. And presumably things like comment sections would generate “consequences” similar to radio stations that pay relatively small fines when live guests on air say “indecent” things.

I think it’s possible that Facebook and Twitter, etc. could not exist under that threat of legal liability. A few years ago I would have said that was unbearable, but now I’m not so sure. The flat earthers and anti-vaxxers of the world worry me. I don’t think they should be prohibited from speech by any stretch, but Facebook and Twitter engagement algorithms lead to echo chambers that amplify radicalism and research has shown how that directly leads to an increasingly angry, divided, polarized citizenry.

It’s one thing if we are angry and divided about truth. It’s another if entire cohorts of the population no longer believe in objective reality because the Facebook algorithm serves them a never ending stream of anti-vax untruth. And much worse the hate groups that lead to “doxing” and worse.

I don’t know what the appropriate answer is, but I don’t think that the status quo is trending in the direction of a better future for humanity, and I think it’s good for us to be asking tough questions and possibly reconsidering whether some of the newer technologies like social media are, on aggregate, worth the harm they cause.

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

#113

Post by chrisco255 »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #49
chrisco255 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they don't. Twitter cannot be sued for something someone tweets that is false or defamatory about someone else. That individual tweeter is responsible. Unlike Fox or CNN who are responsible for what their reporters and commentators say. If Twitter ventures against the spirit of 230 protection, which was designed to protect neutral platforms like a utility, then they deserve to lose it. It's not about who produces…

Here's section 230, it's very short: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Please can you explain how this was "designed to protect neutral platforms like a utility", given that the text contains none of the words "neutral", "platform" or "utility"? It also doesn't contain "editorialise" or any variant that I can see.

Here's the whole bill it was attached to, it's very long: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_19...

Note the original TCA created the FCC. That entire bill was packed with legislation to regulate cable and phone companies as well as providers of internet services...ergo utility.

Section 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against Internet service providers in the early 1990s that had different interpretations of whether the service providers should be treated as publishers or distributors of content created by its users.

Note, it is my strong opinion that Twitter selectively fact checking and blocking tweets or shadowbanning particular users that do not violate any laws or TOS means they are venturing into the publisher role more and more.

Section 230 was clearly designed to preserve free speech not to encourage its destruction by homogeneous corporations.

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

#114

Post by dilap »

burlesona wrote: post #112
dilap wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

HN is very actively moderated, so I think it might be able to exist. And presumably things like comment sections would generate “consequences” similar to radio stations that pay relatively small fines when live guests on air say “indecent” things. I think it’s possible that Facebook and Twitter, etc. could not exist under that threat of legal liability. A few years ago I would have said that was unbearable, but now I…

For me, if someone wants to start a facebook group to talk about flat earth or antivax or any other crazy thing they believe, their freedom as humans to have that conversation trumps other concerns, but you can certainly argue credibly there are dangers and downsides. To me it does not seem qualitatively different than the printing press or allowing physical freedom of association. The invention of the printing press is indirectly responsible for quite a bit of upheaval!

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

#115

Post by carapace »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #111
carapace wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The host is required only to "assist" the authorities so I don't think they'd be liable for that. The encryption process was under your control and short of disabling your internet access or cracking your machine there's nothing they can do about it. If they encrypted your email themselves on your behalf and threw the key away so that authorities couldn't get to it, they might be liable. Now that I think about it, se…

Cheers!

I use a web-hosted email provider that offers e2e encryption (done client-side with a Java app I think.) I don't actually encrypt any emails in practice. But it would be defeating the entire purpose if a service like this could read my encrypted emails (for the authorities or anyone else).

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

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

#116

Post by aspenmayer »

leetcrew wrote: post #62
csnover wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the more you remove stuff you don't like, the more accountable you should be for whatever stuff you continue to host It seems to me that this just creates a perverse incentive to never moderate anything. How would that be an improvement? At a minimum, you’d end up with a space overrun by spammers.

maybe I didn't express this clearly, but the scale of the platform (in users, and possibly also revenue) should be taken into account. a forum the size of HN with only a couple moderators should have most or all of the current safe harbor protections. but if a platform the size of facebook wants to pick and choose what kind of content is allowed, it should face some liability for whatever it allows to stay up. maybe…

It sets up a two-tired internet: one tier for sites with third party content, with rules and compliance and failure modes and enforcement; and one tier for sites which don’t allow third party content. It seems designed to setup a regime or structure or legal framework to force platforms to allow third party content which would otherwise violate the platforms’ terms of service or other guidelines, or force a legal standoff with the government.

It removes control of the site from site operators. This would result it a system ripe for selective enforcement. Not a fan.

Not a fan of how sites currently selectively enforce their terms of service either, whether directly through employees or hired contractors, or indirectly via community moderators. Selective enforcement is the common thread running through this topic on all its sides: the questionable or controversial content and its creators; the platforms and hosts; and the government and its representatives, eager to also have a seat at the selective enforcement table.

Post reply on HN