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

Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 195 posts

Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections

#151

Post by haberman »

bilbo0s wrote: post #141
haberman wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is close, but misses the mark slightly I think. The cpu/disk/bandwidth to store and serve text are so small as to be irrelevant. I don't think it's a cost issue. The issue is one of association . There are strong social forces that punish association with any distasteful speech. The association taints everything (and everyone) it touches, and the liability in the form of negative blowback can grow far beyond wha…

> The cpu/disk/bandwidth to store and serve text are so small as to be irrelevant. Just wondering, in your view, if these costs are so "small", who pays them when advertisers abandon the website? Where does the money come from to cover these costs? (Small as they are.) Full Disclosure: My own belief is that IRL these costs, especially for something at the scale of YouTube, are not likely to be terribly "small" at all…

The revenue from advertisers is supporting both controversial and non-controversial content.

If advertisers completely pull their ads off a website even though only 1% (say) of the content they were sponsoring is actually controversial, then the blowback has cost the platform 100x more than what they were paying to host the controversial content.

I think hosting costs can be significant overall, yes. But I think the marginal hosting cost of allowing controversial content is not significant.

It's only a significant cost when it impacts the revenue stream for the bulk of what the website is publishing.

Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections

#152

Post by prepend »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #44

Be careful of what you ask for. Section 230 exists because the courts punished Prodigy because they tried to moderate their forums but did it imperfectly, but didn't punish CompuServe because they let anything go. The idea is to allow imperfect moderation in addition to both zero and perfect moderation. The internet without section 230 isn't a bastion of internet freedom. It's 4chan and 8chan. It's a shithole.

I don’t think everything devolves to 4chan. But if I had to choose, I suppose I’d rather have 4chan than Facebook. But I hope we never have to choose between those extremes.

Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections

#153

Post by pavon »

tw04 wrote: post #46
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Nothing is ever this simple. Even cursory search would show that this is an ongoing saga linked to LEOs displeasure with encryption. I am not a fan of Trump personally, but no reason to let it cloud your judgment.

It literally is about Trump being angry that Twitter fact checked his outright lies about mail-in voting. There are absolutely other powers that stand to benefit, or are pushing the agenda as well, but to claim it's not a result of Trump's hissy fit is ridiculous. https://deadline.com/2020/05/donald-trump-twitter-social-med... The executive order was signed by exactly one individual who was completely open about why…

The DOJ report that was just released was the result of a year-long investigation by the anti-trust division of the DOJ. While it's release my have been accelerated by Trump's executive order, it certainly wasn't caused by Twitters recent fact checking, and it doesn't directly address some of the points in the executive order. Rather it focuses more on "big sites aren't doing enough to combat crime" than "conservative voices are being suppressed".

Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections

#154

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x »

notahacker wrote: post #150
s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you chose to attack the person, not the proposal. You are wrong. The bill does not designate a political board, it requires tech companies that have over $30 million U.S. users per month and an annual income of over $1.5 billion, to publish all of their content moderation policies. Users who charge that the companies are not implementing content moderation policies fairly would be able to sue for $5,000 plus at…

The published text doesn't require companies to publish logs, it requires them to publish a policy [something Twitter and Facebook already do to some extent] and then allows vexatious litigants to sue for $5k in imaginary damages if they disagree with how the policy is applied. This isn't transferring power from the tech elite to the public, it's making trolling the new patent trolling.

Under that interpretation, companies will certainly want to keep a public moderation log for court documentation then.

Being transparent as possible will be best for the user and the courts to determine whether or not there is selective bias in moderation.

Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections

#155

Post by notahacker »

bootlooped wrote: post #134
elliekelly wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like HN’s approach and wish more platforms would follow a similar format. As far as I know, nothing is ever “removed” from the site - it’s just greyed out or hidden by default. Anyone who wants to read the bothersome comments can flip the switch to see them but no one can reply to them which seems like a really effective approach to me. If a “censored” tweet couldn’t be shared/retweeted/replied to but was still ava…

In this comment thread you can find at least one comment removed. Search for the text "[flagged]".

If you have showdead on you can still read the flagged comments, without even needing to click through like a Twitter content warning. I'm sure mods can permanently delete stuff where absolutely necessary, but generally seem to leave it even when it's obvious spam or highly offensive. I guess the big difference between this and social platforms is that nobody comes to HN to show off their edgy credentials to their adoring fan base or organize harassment campaigns via the platform.

Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections

#156

Post by haberman »

dane-pgp wrote: post #142
haberman wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is a bubble. In the public at large, Trump still polls at a better than 40% approval rating and Joe Biden easily beat Twitter darlings like Warren and Sanders.

> Joe Biden easily beat Twitter darlings like Warren and Sanders. It's worth asking whether Biden's popularity relative to Warren and Sanders is actually an artefact of an under-use of preferential/ranked voting systems for polls and primaries. To pick an example from last September[0], Warren and Sanders had 19.7% and 17.1% support, respectively, while Biden had 29.6%. That's not to say that Warren or Sanders would…

Even if I grant 100% of your argument, nowhere near 29.6% of Twitter expressed support for Biden as their first choice.

Twitter is not representative of the general electorate.

Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections

#157

Post by kthxbye123 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #120
bcrosby95 wrote: post #44

Be careful of what you ask for. Section 230 exists because the courts punished Prodigy because they tried to moderate their forums but did it imperfectly, but didn't punish CompuServe because they let anything go. The idea is to allow imperfect moderation in addition to both zero and perfect moderation. The internet without section 230 isn't a bastion of internet freedom. It's 4chan and 8chan. It's a shithole.

I'm okay with imperfect moderation. What I'm not okay with is backdoor untracked political contributions under the guise of imperfect moderation. It feels, to me, that Twitter and Google have given Billions of dollars worth of political censorship/promotion/search bias. Let's get the FEC involved so we can measure and track this political spending.

This is absolute incoherent nonsense. Are TV networks that air press conferences giving 'untracked political contributions'? Is a network that chooses not to air a particular speech or event giving an 'untracked contribution' in the form of 'political censorship'?

Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections

#158

Post by themacguffinman »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #44

Be careful of what you ask for. Section 230 exists because the courts punished Prodigy because they tried to moderate their forums but did it imperfectly, but didn't punish CompuServe because they let anything go. The idea is to allow imperfect moderation in addition to both zero and perfect moderation. The internet without section 230 isn't a bastion of internet freedom. It's 4chan and 8chan. It's a shithole.

I doubt that it will devolve into 4chan & 8chan which are abhorrent to common people, there's no money in doing that.

The internet will find a different way to appeal to the mainstream, probably by becoming more similar to cable TV & Netflix & Disney: practically eliminate amateur content and stick to professional, big budget productions.

Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections

#159

Post by g-b-r »

charwalker wrote: post #95
mudil wrote: post #83

When social media firms ban conservative voices, they need to be sued for interference with interstate commerce. Because that's what it is.

I'm experimenting with Markdown in this comment and may edit to reformat links better. Actual comment: Specifically when conservative voices are banned or a voice of any leaning? If a voice, right or left, tweets supporting hate or violence should that be removed with equal prejudice or left in place regardless? If it's a left wing voice posting bannable content 9/10 times, is that unfairly banning/censoring of left…

Can you clarify what you meant with "experimenting with markdown"? (since I see you're not a new user)

Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections

#160

Post by g-b-r »

tw04 wrote: post #79
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are assuming that the order is a cause rather a convenient excuse to pursue a specific agenda. I appreciate the approach, by a person signing it is just a convenient lightning rod. Note that it seems to be working very well.

A convenient excuse for what? The president doesn't need an excuse to sign an executive order, he needs exactly 0 permission from anyone to do it. This isn't some new law drafted by congress that needs political cover to move through the process, it's an executive order.

If he cares for re-election, he still needs excuses from time to time...
Post reply on HN