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

DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 392 posts

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#161

Post by majormajor »

shadowgovt wrote: post #155
yunohn wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a systemic issue on hackernews. People forgetting reality exists, and always pointing at the rules and acting as if they're infallible. You'd think /hackers/ would understand that rules are for show. I've seen this regarding serious legislation like this or even something as mundane as Apple's app store "guidelines".

> You'd think hackers would understand that rules are for show. I may be misinterpreting your wording here (my apologies if I am), but I'd assume the opposite. I'd think people who operate in a realm where text becomes action executed by a machine designed wholly around faithful, reliable execution of text fed to it would come to learn the reality-defining power of rules.

> I'd think people who operate in a realm where text becomes action executed by a machine designed wholly around faithful, reliable execution of text fed to it would come to learn the reality-defining power of rules.

Ah, but don't forget how often the code that gets written doesn't do exactly what the writer expected! Or is exploited by another party...

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#162

Post by jfengel »

shadowgovt wrote: post #155
yunohn wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a systemic issue on hackernews. People forgetting reality exists, and always pointing at the rules and acting as if they're infallible. You'd think /hackers/ would understand that rules are for show. I've seen this regarding serious legislation like this or even something as mundane as Apple's app store "guidelines".

> You'd think hackers would understand that rules are for show. I may be misinterpreting your wording here (my apologies if I am), but I'd assume the opposite. I'd think people who operate in a realm where text becomes action executed by a machine designed wholly around faithful, reliable execution of text fed to it would come to learn the reality-defining power of rules.

We're acutely aware, I think, of the vast gap between computer interpreted rules and human interpreted ones. The computer's interpretation may be hard to fathom but is ultimately rigorous. Human interpreted rules are basically vacuous: a human can make anything mean anything, no matter how rigorous it may seem.

All it requires is for other humans to accept your interpretation. That depends both on the text, your position in society, and that of the other person. The text will convince a few people when the difference in power is small. When the difference in position is large, no text will support the person in the subordinate position.

Lawyers pretend that this is not the case, and that they have mastered objective interpretation of the rules. It is unclear whether they say that because they are stupid, or because they think you are stupid. As programmers, who really are trained in objective interpretation of rules, it's laughable either way.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#163

Post by reb »

shadowgovt wrote: post #155
yunohn wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a systemic issue on hackernews. People forgetting reality exists, and always pointing at the rules and acting as if they're infallible. You'd think /hackers/ would understand that rules are for show. I've seen this regarding serious legislation like this or even something as mundane as Apple's app store "guidelines".

> You'd think hackers would understand that rules are for show. I may be misinterpreting your wording here (my apologies if I am), but I'd assume the opposite. I'd think people who operate in a realm where text becomes action executed by a machine designed wholly around faithful, reliable execution of text fed to it would come to learn the reality-defining power of rules.

Hackers are specifically interested in exploring/exploiting the way human nature makes all machines vulnerable. IE taking a reasonably well-defined system of rules built with good intentions and using them for something entirely unintended.

In this sense, law is similar to code, but far easier to exploit.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#165

Post by danso »

stale2002 wrote: post #136
danso wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean “why isn’t speech codified at the same level”? You mean, why haven’t legislators made a law that protects free speech against discrimination by employers and businesses, in the same way the Civil Rights Act does for religion? I mean, what other answer is there than what’s implied by that very question: it’s because “legislators haven’t made a law”. Now you can believe all you want that there’s been a…

> I mean, what other answer is there than what’s implied by that very question: it’s because “legislators haven’t made a law”. Imagine if someone ask you "Why is this Apple red?", and then you responded by saying "Well obviously, it is red, because it is red!" Would this response be considered by anyone to be anything other than a pretty extreme bad faith response? I think it is pretty obvious what the other person w…

If I had intended a "pretty extreme bad faith response", I would've done it in a sentence, not several paragraphs.

To use your analogy, it'd be as if u/deadmik3 were asking, "Why must apples be called 'apples', when oranges are called 'oranges'?" It's a question that isn't coherent enough for a single answer, as it seems to be based on flawed foundational assumptions on the part of the asker, e.g. "Who says you 'must' call apples 'apples'" and "Do you actually think English people named oranges after the color, 'orange'?"

Here's deadmik3's original question/assertion [0]:

> Why is speech the only part of 1A that gets this treatment? You wouldn't say the same thing about religion

I would've thought u/kube-system's response was clear enough (e.g. it's the Civil Rights Act, not the 1A, that protects religion), but apparently it hasn't been. So I genuinely don't know what deadmik3's issue is. Do they think laws (and/or the process of making them) are merely a "semantic" concept? Do they think that religion and speech, being in the "First" amendment, confers to them a special overriding priority (i.e. in the way that being in Amendments 2-27 do not)? And if so, have they considered that the 1A explicitly mentions 3 other freedoms – press, assembly, and petition/lobbying – that, like speech, do not have the protection for religion?

Without knowing the presumptions behind their confusing question, it's hard to answer or otherwise debate it. I mean, the natural rebuttal would be to point out that the CRA's protections for religion is far from clear cut and indisputable – has deadmik3 never heard of the gay wedding cake case, which after 6 years ended in a narrowly defined Supreme Court decision? [1] – which means that similar protections for free speech would be even more contentious and logistically complicated, which is likely a key factor why that legislation doesn't exist/has never passed.

But why get into that if someone believes lawmaking is a semantic designation, rather than an actual process that requires considering how a law (and its enforcement) will actually operate in reality?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24570504

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#166

Post by djur »

tangjurine wrote: post #119
joshuamorton wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oof. That's a good source. Section 5c is particularly problematic. It disallows shadow-bans if I'm reading correctly. Section f9 is...suspicious. Section d4 seems painful for small providers. You lose good samaritan status if there isn't a good way to contact you. Section c2A is the important one. It basically means that a site cannot remove content unless it is objectively obscene or extreme. Section g5A suggests th…

>Section 5c is particularly problematic. It disallows shadow-bans if I'm reading correctly. Can you explain more, I'm not really seeing it... Also how is disallowing shadowbanning problematic? I always never liked it.

What's the legitimate government interest in disallowing shadowbanning?

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#167

Post by shadowgovt »

jfengel wrote: post #162
shadowgovt wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'd think hackers would understand that rules are for show. I may be misinterpreting your wording here (my apologies if I am), but I'd assume the opposite. I'd think people who operate in a realm where text becomes action executed by a machine designed wholly around faithful, reliable execution of text fed to it would come to learn the reality-defining power of rules.

We're acutely aware, I think, of the vast gap between computer interpreted rules and human interpreted ones. The computer's interpretation may be hard to fathom but is ultimately rigorous. Human interpreted rules are basically vacuous: a human can make anything mean anything, no matter how rigorous it may seem. All it requires is for other humans to accept your interpretation. That depends both on the text, your posi…

I believe you are underestimating the work lawyers do.

I try to avoid the error of confusing my lack of knowledge of the grammar of a system with the system itself being stupid. Law and its application have flaws, but it's not an "anything goes" system as you seem to be describing it here.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#168

Post by yunohn »

shadowgovt wrote: post #155
yunohn wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a systemic issue on hackernews. People forgetting reality exists, and always pointing at the rules and acting as if they're infallible. You'd think /hackers/ would understand that rules are for show. I've seen this regarding serious legislation like this or even something as mundane as Apple's app store "guidelines".

> You'd think hackers would understand that rules are for show. I may be misinterpreting your wording here (my apologies if I am), but I'd assume the opposite. I'd think people who operate in a realm where text becomes action executed by a machine designed wholly around faithful, reliable execution of text fed to it would come to learn the reality-defining power of rules.

I understand and agree with what you mean, but that's what I'd associate with Engineers. I was thinking Hackers understand that the code running on the machine can be exploited.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#169

Post by [deleted] »

donatj wrote: post #151
buhhh wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the first amendment isn't Article 19 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not sure where you're going with that.

The point is that speech hosted on "new frontiers" is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regardless to whether or not it's protected by the First Amendment.

[deleted]

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#170

Post by shadowgovt »

reb wrote: post #163
shadowgovt wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You'd think hackers would understand that rules are for show. I may be misinterpreting your wording here (my apologies if I am), but I'd assume the opposite. I'd think people who operate in a realm where text becomes action executed by a machine designed wholly around faithful, reliable execution of text fed to it would come to learn the reality-defining power of rules.

Hackers are specifically interested in exploring/exploiting the way human nature makes all machines vulnerable. IE taking a reasonably well-defined system of rules built with good intentions and using them for something entirely unintended. In this sense, law is similar to code, but far easier to exploit.

> In this sense, law is similar to code, but far easier to exploit.

I see way too few computer engineer criminal masterminds to accept this hypothesis at face value. ;)

Post reply on HN