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

21–30 of 195 posts

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

#21

Post by adventured »

nojito wrote: post #7

>The Justice Department also will seek to make clear that tech platforms don’t have immunity in civil enforcement actions brought by the federal government, and can’t use immunity as a defense against antitrust claims that they removed content for anticompetitive reasons. Oh boy...the costs of running Google, Twitter, Facebook and others... will quintuple overnight when Congress passes this.

It's wonderful to see the price of censorship by colluding monopolies is going to skyrocket.

I can't wait until the fines start raining down. They'll have earned every cent of the financial damages. The arrogant, biased platforms picked a fight they can't win with half the political power in the US.

This rapid, broad shift is why Larry and Sergey ran for the hills not long ago, abandoning Alphabet as fast as possible; they saw what was coming (including the anti-trust investigations). I bet they destroyed as much of their internal communication history as possible as well (legally of course, probably), so it can't be used against them or the company.

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

#22

Post by fredthomsen »

BelleOfTheBall wrote: post #4

Ah, seeking to mess with Section 230 again, just like with the EARN It Act. Any company that stays headquartered in the USA if this passes is just begging for trouble.

so funny considering the history of 230 and how prodigy was the inspiration for it because they modded user posts

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

#23

Post by cletus »

BelleOfTheBall wrote: post #4

Ah, seeking to mess with Section 230 again, just like with the EARN It Act. Any company that stays headquartered in the USA if this passes is just begging for trouble.

That really doesn't change anything. If you want to do business in the US (and everyone does) then you're subject to US laws. "Jurisdiction" here is simply a question of how a country defines it and is willing and able to prosecute it.

For example, if two US citizens on US soil discuss insider trading of an Australian company that does not even do business in the US using trades on US brokers, those two individuals are in violation of the Australian Corporations Act and can be criminally prosecuted (by Australian authorities). Why? Because Australia claims jurisdiction over any Australian company.

Likewise, "sex tourism" with children in South East Asia is rampant and many countries are unwilling or unable to prosecute. Australia has deemed having sex with an underage person in a foreign country is likewise a crime in Australia that they can and do prosecute.

The US is able to to exercise a lot of power with international banks because they have the power to remove a financial institution's access to the US banking system. It's this stick that allowed the IRS to go after Swiss banks for complicity in US citizens evading US taxes.

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

#24

Post by akersten »

Can someone who supports "let's hold internet platforms responsible for what their users do on their platform" explain how that's any different than "let's hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?"

I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable fantasies.

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

#25

Post by Communitivity »

seemslegit wrote: post #9
Communitivity wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ireland looks good, at least on paper. I'm attached to the U.S., but if I was looking at relocating to Ireland I'd want to talk to people I knew who are on the ground there, or at least friends of friends who are. A puff piece, but has some interesting tidbits: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shourjyasanyal/2018/11/27/is-ir...

And I suppose you have done research on the Irish legal system, its liability protections for 3rd party content providers, its jurisprudence on hate speech, defamation and libel ? (hint: it's part of the EU)

I have not, and never claimed I did. I said it looks good on paper. A number of sources have said it is startup friendly.

If the EU's laws are so burdensome, why is there a thriving startup ecosystem in the EU? I have read about EU's stances on hate speech, defamation, and libel (though I wouldn't call that hobby reading research), and I am fine with their stances.

I think we could use more hate speech protection, when I see reports that as much as 60% of the tweets in the current U.S. political conversations are done by biased bots.

And no, I am firmly against EARN IT and the other 230 attacks. We need internet legislation that is thoughtful, created by technical SME staffers and constitutional law SME staffers, not broad-brush legislation pandering to votes, FUD, or special interests.

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

#26

Post by arkades »

akersten wrote: post #24

Can someone who supports "let's hold internet platforms responsible for what their users do on their platform" explain how that's any different than "let's hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?" I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable fantasies.

You don't see the difference between "let's hold companies responsible for what people do as part of utilizing their services, while utilizing their services" and "let's hold companies responsible for what people do with an item they have purchased once entirely out of the supervision of that company, without any possible oversight or control"?

I can't hold a skateboard co. responsible for what people do with skateboards they've purchased. I can most certainly hold a skate park responsible for what happens in the skate park.

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

#27

Post by vnchr »

akersten wrote: post #24

Can someone who supports "let's hold internet platforms responsible for what their users do on their platform" explain how that's any different than "let's hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?" I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable fantasies.

Internet platforms maintain control over their system whereas gun manufacturers give away control to gun buyers.

The gun manufacturer ceases to maintain control and cannot be assigned responsibility after the sale of the good.

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

#28

Post by throwawaygh »

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 editorial oversight away from one class (tech CEOs) and then giving it to another (a politically-appointed board).

Does anyone have a good proposal for how to go about reforming Section 230 in a way that's workable and values free speech?

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

#29

Post by akersten »

vnchr wrote: post #27
akersten wrote: post #24

Can someone who supports "let's hold internet platforms responsible for what their users do on their platform" explain how that's any different than "let's hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?" I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable fantasies.

Internet platforms maintain control over their system whereas gun manufacturers give away control to gun buyers. The gun manufacturer ceases to maintain control and cannot be assigned responsibility after the sale of the good.

So if a gun manufacturer did keep control over their gun, like with an electronic targeting system making decisions on behalf of the user[0], by the control argument, wouldn't they then have a responsibility to make sure it's used appropriately?

[0]: https://www.tracking-point.com/ (Yeah it's an aftermarket product, but for argument's sake, let's say it was 1st party)

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

#30

Post by akersten »

arkades wrote: post #26
akersten wrote: post #24

Can someone who supports "let's hold internet platforms responsible for what their users do on their platform" explain how that's any different than "let's hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?" I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable fantasies.

You don't see the difference between "let's hold companies responsible for what people do as part of utilizing their services, while utilizing their services" and "let's hold companies responsible for what people do with an item they have purchased once entirely out of the supervision of that company, without any possible oversight or control"? I can't hold a skateboard co. responsible for what people do with skatebo…

No, I really don't see the difference, because the service here is the product. The service is not a place of accommodation like a skate park.

"Company makes thing, people do bad with thing, hold Company responsible" is a scary line of thought, and that's exact same scenario for both Facebook and guns.

"Thing hurts person using it" is closer to your skate park analogy, and yeah, in that case, of course Company should be responsible for making a bad thing.

Post reply on HN