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

171–180 of 195 posts

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

#171

Post by throwawaygh »

s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #122
throwawaygh wrote: post #28

I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that Section 230 protections should come with some sort of obligation to allow free speech. However, the actual policy proposals for replacing Section 230 are all outright dystopian. Josh Hawley, in particular, is NOT a free speech advocate. His problem with Facebook/Tiwtter is perceived liberal bias, and the alternatives to Section 230 that he suggests are 100% about wrestling e…

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…

Section 3.

Here's Josh's own description of the legislative intent: "Big tech companies would have to prove to the FTC by clear and convincing evidence that their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral. The FTC could not certify big tech companies for immunity except by a supermajority vote"

If the FTC has the authority that Josh wants it to have then it will 100% be politically weaponized by whoever controls the white house at the time of passage (so, Trump, because it'll only pass if R's sweep in 2021). IMO it's quite naive to think otherwise. In general, but also specifically with respect to Trump.

But, assume Trump is this amazingly neutral and high-minded person uninterested in using political power to shape social media narratives. Okay. I have a PhD in machine learning, have tons of experience designing and deploying systems, and I'm pretty up to date on all of the fairness literature. I have No. Fucking. Clue. how I would convince even myself that a content moderation algorithm is "politically neutral".

Even with a clean spec, this seems hard because content moderation algorithms are huge and complex. Wasn't it just a few years ago that a bug in Java's sorting algorithm was found by trying to certify its correctness? Like, bugs live in freaking sorting algorithms of the most popular languages for years and years. Even with a ridiculously clean spec, ...

...and the spec here isn't nearly as clean as "sort the list". The question of what "politically neutral" even means is extraordinarily political. So even if the FTC wasn't explicitly weaponized -- and, dear god, it will be, because the counter-factural here is insane -- the judgements here will still be implicitly political because the spec ("politically neutral") is inherently political.

Proving that a hugely complex ML algorithm is fair simply won't be some sort of apolitical mathematical exercise.

Also, note well: I wasn't even referring to the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act specifically. But I don't really want to start a debate around this point because that's all beside the point.

I'm curious. What do you think of the proposal made in this thread that people should be able to use their own filters and the big tech cos should be required to implement a clean api for enabling third party filters?

That seems like it solves the "some people don't want to see X" problem in a pretty politically neutral way, but also in a way that acknowledges the difference between the walled-garden network effects web of 2020 and the more decentralized web of 2005.

Seems strictly superior to Josh's proposal of creating a huge incentive to politically weaponize the FTC and giving that almost certainly weaponized body broad authority.

If you think that the "user-chosen filters" solution is not better than Josh's proposal, I'm really interested to hear why.

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

#172

Post by bilbo0s »

haberman wrote: post #151
bilbo0s wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

But if there is no way to remove content because of mandatory free speech, then the controversial content goes to 99%. No advertiser will pay for ads alongside a torrent of profanity and porn. It just won't happen. (Well, porn sites might? But no one else.)

Not to mention the fact that the sites could not stop advertisers from posting ads on their site in any case. (Since it would be illegal to remove content. Free speech and all that.) So why would I pay that 8 figure yearly sum to you that the big advertisers are paying today, when I can pay not even a million to a spam farm to post my ads as standard comments that you are forbidden from removing? And it's completely legal.

I just think you're being a tad idealist. Spam farms exist. Botnets exist. Pedophiles, porn stars, klansmen, all these exist. This stuff would be the majority of content, not 1% of content. Spam alone would overwhelm interesting content, and that's before you even throw in the porn, pedophilia, and klan rallies.

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

#173

Post by paul_f »

ensignavenger wrote: post #93
throwawaygh wrote: post #28

I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that Section 230 protections should come with some sort of obligation to allow free speech. However, the actual policy proposals for replacing Section 230 are all outright dystopian. Josh Hawley, in particular, is NOT a free speech advocate. His problem with Facebook/Tiwtter is perceived liberal bias, and the alternatives to Section 230 that he suggests are 100% about wrestling e…

The whole point of Section 230 is to allow digital communications services to moderate their platforms without incurring liability for the things their users say. If you want to stop the moderation, all you would need to do is completely repeal Section 230- as it no longer serves any purpose under such a system.

This is not really true, in fact, in my opinion, it is the opposite of this. Services are given immunity if they don't moderate their content. Once they moderate it, they lose the protections. Facebook want to moderate content and receive immunity, and that is the crux of the problem.

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

#174

Post by paul_f »

driverdan wrote: post #123
joshuaheard wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Use the First Amendment standard, which is basically anything but obscenity and threats of imminent violence.

That's unreasonable. Without moderation you'd have a 100 to 1 ratio of spam to good content. Platforms should be able to control content in the way they see fit for their platform.

Google is under fire for removing political speech they don't like, not spam. This is where losing the 230 protections become a problem for them.

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

#175

Post by throwawaygh »

dlp211 wrote: post #110
throwawaygh wrote: post #28

I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that Section 230 protections should come with some sort of obligation to allow free speech. However, the actual policy proposals for replacing Section 230 are all outright dystopian. Josh Hawley, in particular, is NOT a free speech advocate. His problem with Facebook/Tiwtter is perceived liberal bias, and the alternatives to Section 230 that he suggests are 100% about wrestling e…

[flagged]

> What. Part. Of. You. Are. Not. Entitled. To. A. Platform. Do. So. Many. People. Have. A. Problem. With. Understanding.

Yeah. I get it. Used to be there.

The part where some companies get Section 230 protection. I mean, that's just a political debate away from death. Get it?

> The idea that "conservative" voices are being censored when the largest news station on the planet is a mouthpiece for "conservatives" and the 9 out 10 of the most shared articles on Facebook come from "conservative" sources is the most laughable argument.

Yes.

> I seriously can not wrap my head around any argument being made about "free speech" and platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.

Platforms.

> We learned forever ago from that allowing forums to go unmoderated leads to the absolute worst people taking over that forum.

Sure. So why not jut enforce politically neutral moderation? Why is that so hard?!

You get the point, I hope. The argument that "politically neutral moderation" is impossible needs to be made. Not to people who were on BBSes, but to people who grew up on FB.

I used to have your view. The debate has... moved on. There's a really damn good point about the role that networks and platforms play in social discourse, which I think can't just be "you don't understand the internet!"'d away.

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

#176

Post by throwawaygh »

haberman wrote: post #126
SN76477 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His problem with Facebook/Tiwtter is perceived liberal bias This seems to be because they live in a bubble where everyone agrees with them. But when they look at the real world they do not see the same. giving them the perception of bias, but there is none. They simply have an unpopular opinion.

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.

> Twitter is a bubble

Yup.

So is Missouri's GOP.

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

#177

Post by ryukafalz »

paul_f wrote: post #173
ensignavenger wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of Section 230 is to allow digital communications services to moderate their platforms without incurring liability for the things their users say. If you want to stop the moderation, all you would need to do is completely repeal Section 230- as it no longer serves any purpose under such a system.

This is not really true, in fact, in my opinion, it is the opposite of this. Services are given immunity if they don't moderate their content. Once they moderate it, they lose the protections. Facebook want to moderate content and receive immunity, and that is the crux of the problem.

You're mixing up section 230 with the situation prior to section 230. There were two important cases prior to its passage:

- Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., in which Prodigy was found to be liable due to their content moderation, and

- Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., in which CompuServe was held not liable for content, as they were unaware of it

Section 230 was in fact created to change this - to allow companies to moderate without making them liable for all of the actions of their users.

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

#178

Post by alkibiades »

jasode wrote: post #124
throwawaygh wrote: post #28

I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that Section 230 protections should come with some sort of obligation to allow free speech. However, the actual policy proposals for replacing Section 230 are all outright dystopian. Josh Hawley, in particular, is NOT a free speech advocate. His problem with Facebook/Tiwtter is perceived liberal bias, and the alternatives to Section 230 that he suggests are 100% about wrestling e…

>Section 230 protections should come with some sort of obligation to allow free speech. [...] Does anyone have a good proposal [...] and values free speech? Nobody has a good proposal because every discussion about the idealism of "values free speech" is always hiding the true difficulty: nobody wants to be forced to pay for others' undesirable speech. E.g. Youtube can't be a "free speech" platform because advertiser…

thats not true. there are people who would be happy to advertise on the federalist or conservative content, but youtube/google bans it anyway because they are ideologues.

how hard would it to be to allow them to match with advertisers who specifically want to be on that type of content?

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

#179

Post by cthalupa »

catalogia wrote: post #111
arcticbull wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's so cut and dried. For instance, if you sell a defective gun, and that gun kills the shooter instead of the target, you can certainly be assigned responsibility. Liability doesn't end when something is in someone else's hands. Selling something you know is dangerous, than you know can harm, brings with it is own liability -- contaminated lettuce for instance. There are a number of implied warranties…

American gun manufacturers, like pretty much any other manufacturer, can indeed be sued if their product is defective. For example: Remington has caught a lot of heat for defective triggers in their Model 700 series rifles. When people say American gun manufacturers can't be sued, they're talking about the PLCAA, which shields gun manufacturers from lawsuits concerning guns they made being used in crimes. The PLCAA d…

>American gun manufacturers, like pretty much any other manufacturer, can indeed be sued if their product is defective.

The parent is explicitly calling out that gun manufacturers can be sued for defects in the product, and as such the idea that manufacturer liability ends after they have sold the product is patently false.

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

#180

Post by throwaway_USD »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #168
throwaway_USD wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you need a underlying cause of action...that's how law works. The point is liability, gun manufactures and dealers can be liable for the products used in killings by third parties...even after lawful sales. Take the case of the Sandy Hook victims that sued Remington. Initially their case was dismissed, because the lower court rules the manufacture is shielded from any liability under Protection of Lawful Commerc…

I guess I was differentiating plain old negligence from the lawsuits that specifically go after immunity carve-outs in the PLCAA. Interestingly, most of the reporting I was just reading suggests that the Sandy Hook case has been allowed to move forward because makers and sellers lose their immunity if they "knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product." This sounded…

>plain old negligence from the lawsuits that specifically go after immunity carve-outs in the PLCAA.

Negligence is a cause of action based on elements of duty and breach of said duty. So the question becomes what was the duty of the manufacture and how was said duty breach (the theory of the claim is very fact specific, there isn't really a "plain old negligence" theory). You are right about the proximate cause, that is another element of negligence claims that must be proven, meaning there must be a proximate cause between the breach of the duty and the damages...meaning there could be a duty and even a breach of said duty, but no liability because the breach was not the proximate cause of the damages (this really gets into the weeds of case law).

>The tech industry must have better lobbyists than the gun industry.

Its not about the quality of the lobbyists, NRA and big tech likely use the very same lobbyists, its about spend. Because of the proliferation of mass shootings almost every knows about the NRA and pro gun rights groups, meanwhile almost no one knows about big tech lobbying, and they might be surprised to learn how much big tech outspends NRA/gun rights...big tech spent $500M in the last decade lobbying.

Post reply on HN