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

21–30 of 116 posts

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

#21

Post by ashtonkem »

commandlinefan wrote: post #10
all_factz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d rather the sites themselves decide than the US government decide. You can always go to a different site. But once we have the government intervening and saying “this is what is acceptable speech online, this is what isn’t”, that’s a whole nother level of censorship I’d rather avoid.

> this is what is acceptable speech online, this is what isn’t But that isn't what they're saying. They're saying, "if you are deciding what is acceptable speech, you're now responsible for it." And for the record, I absolutely agree.

That would have the opposite effect you’re hoping for.

If the bar for Twitter becoming responsible for every yahoo’s tweet is set that low, they will have a hair trigger on what it takes to get banned. Why risk it?

I guess the alternative is to ban all moderation and let every site turn into Gab, which sounds pretty awful to me.

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

#22

Post by csnover »

dx87 wrote: post #13
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.

The platform can provide tools that allows users to moderate what they want. RES on reddit is good at that, you can make it so you don't see posts from certain users, filter posts and links, etc.

What happens if the users are the ones that moderate to include only the libellous content, per the GP’s example? Is the provider then responsible for that in this world where more moderation = more liability? Do the volunteer moderators become the liable parties instead? What if a user is also an employee of the company, does that make the company liable again?

While I like the idea of self-policing communities, it doesn’t always work so well in reality (Slashdot’s comment voting system was great at burying bad content during the site’s heyday—though it never eliminated it—now it works pretty poorly because most of the audience has shifted away. Reddit’s subreddit moderation system can be great, except for the racism[0].)

This seems to me like a poorly thought through solution and I’m not really sure what the goal is.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/06/reddi...

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

#23

Post by tomohawk »

CerealFounder wrote: post #12
notadev wrote: post #5

>Section 230 is an essential legal pillar for online speech. And when powerful people don’t like that speech, or the platforms that host it, the provision becomes a scapegoat for just about every tech-related problem. Does anyone actually believe this is an authoritarian attempt to squash speech that is "speaking truth to power"? This is the result of years of work to remove any dissenting voice from the generally Le…

Libertarians are real free enterprise until it affects their lives... But before I get thrashed for hurthing feelings, the real problem is these networks act like pubs and open networks. Paid amplification is almost certainly the problem in that it allows money to act as speech. by allowing it to reach more people that didnt seek it. Historically a wild fringe idea stayed that way because it was hard to convert peopl…

What is "free enterprise" about the activities of monopolies like Google? Monopolies restrain trade an prevent free enterprise.

Google and the other monopolies do not deserve any special protection.

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

#24

Post by mcintyre1994 »

notadev wrote: post #5

>Section 230 is an essential legal pillar for online speech. And when powerful people don’t like that speech, or the platforms that host it, the provision becomes a scapegoat for just about every tech-related problem. Does anyone actually believe this is an authoritarian attempt to squash speech that is "speaking truth to power"? This is the result of years of work to remove any dissenting voice from the generally Le…

It's hard not to see this as an authoritarian backlash to "speaking truth to power" when the President is arguing Twitter should lose 230 because they fact checked his tweet. Fact checking a President's tweet translates quite naturally to speaking truth to power.

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

#25

Post by api »

CerealFounder wrote: post #12
notadev wrote: post #5

>Section 230 is an essential legal pillar for online speech. And when powerful people don’t like that speech, or the platforms that host it, the provision becomes a scapegoat for just about every tech-related problem. Does anyone actually believe this is an authoritarian attempt to squash speech that is "speaking truth to power"? This is the result of years of work to remove any dissenting voice from the generally Le…

Libertarians are real free enterprise until it affects their lives... But before I get thrashed for hurthing feelings, the real problem is these networks act like pubs and open networks. Paid amplification is almost certainly the problem in that it allows money to act as speech. by allowing it to reach more people that didnt seek it. Historically a wild fringe idea stayed that way because it was hard to convert peopl…

Paid amplification isn't the fundamental problem, but it contributes. The root of all evil on the Internet in the past 10-15 years is algorithmic timelines and algorithmic content curation whose goal function is to increase engagement.

What increases engagement? Fear, hate, conflict, and spectacle. The media has understood this for years: "if it bleeds it leads." People have a strong bias to stare at danger, probably a social adaptation to notice if a mountain lion is attacking your tribe. But when you apply it to user-generated free content, the result is the familiar "rabbit hole" and "filter bubble" phenomena and folie a deux at scale.

Back when humans directly curated content via curated lists, organic timelines that were actually just timelines, and organic non-spam-driven hyperlinking, everything was more rational and less toxic. (Even Reddit/HN style voting is better if it's truly organic and not biased by some algorithm, though it does lead to a different sort of "Borg" phenomenon sometimes.)

Even the fringe was far less toxic and more reasonable. Go find some conspiracy or other fringe topic sites from prior to 2010 on the Wayback Machine.

The problem isn't humans. The problem is that we stuck a middleman in front of human group communication and programmed that middleman to bias what messages are shown in a way that tends to amplify negativity, irrationality, and fluff as opposed to more useful and interesting but less dopamine-releasing content.

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

#26

Post by ashtonkem »

youareostriches wrote: post #20
notadev wrote: post #5

>Section 230 is an essential legal pillar for online speech. And when powerful people don’t like that speech, or the platforms that host it, the provision becomes a scapegoat for just about every tech-related problem. Does anyone actually believe this is an authoritarian attempt to squash speech that is "speaking truth to power"? This is the result of years of work to remove any dissenting voice from the generally Le…

Reddit prohibits content which: * Is illegal * Is involuntary pornography * Is sexual or suggestive content involving minors * Encourages or incites violence * Threatens, harasses, or bullies or encourages others to do so * Is personal and confidential information * Impersonates an individual or entity in a misleading or deceptive manner * Uses Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain…

Also, /r/conservative is a thing, and they’re not exactly a bastion of the type of free speech they’re advocating; it’s super easy to get banned from that sub.

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

#27

Post by speeder »

akersten wrote: post #17
commandlinefan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is what is acceptable speech online, this is what isn’t But that isn't what they're saying. They're saying, "if you are deciding what is acceptable speech, you're now responsible for it." And for the record, I absolutely agree.

I only consider sewing-related posts acceptable on my sewing message board. If I moderate anything else, I'm suddenly responsible for any libel that gets posted while I'm asleep? That position is absurd.

I think he meant that people posting instructions on how to see country flags or how to make a swastika or gay rainbow flag should not be moderated, of you do moderate then you are liable (for example if someone post instructions to sew a KKK hood and you refuse to remove that, but you remove other things, then you get sued for condoning hate speech)

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

#28

Post by [deleted] »

notadev wrote: post #5

>Section 230 is an essential legal pillar for online speech. And when powerful people don’t like that speech, or the platforms that host it, the provision becomes a scapegoat for just about every tech-related problem. Does anyone actually believe this is an authoritarian attempt to squash speech that is "speaking truth to power"? This is the result of years of work to remove any dissenting voice from the generally Le…

[deleted]

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

#29

Post by burlesona »

dilap wrote: post #11
burlesona wrote: post #6

Honestly I am not sure legal immunity for network platforms is actually a good thing. Those platforms are very much like traditional publishers in that they greatly amplify and spread the content posted on their network. Amplification* without accountability is very different than freedom of speech. * if you want to quibble with “amplification,” I would more specifically say that _asynchronous_ and/or _targeted_ dist…

You basically just don't believe in free speech. Which is, historically, the more popular position. The idea that ideas should be able to amplified & spread w/o institutional control is rather radical.

That’s false. There has always been a difference between freedom to say what you want and freedom from consequences. The famous adage “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”

Newspapers are liable for libel suits and other legal remedies if they publish false and damaging information. I think it’s fair to consider Facebook a publisher when their algorithms take content and distribute it to the world better than any newspaper could have.

That is fundamentally very different from self-hosting one’s own website, or giving a speech in the town square.

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

#30

Post by akersten »

speeder wrote: post #27
akersten wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only consider sewing-related posts acceptable on my sewing message board. If I moderate anything else, I'm suddenly responsible for any libel that gets posted while I'm asleep? That position is absurd.

I think he meant that people posting instructions on how to see country flags or how to make a swastika or gay rainbow flag should not be moderated, of you do moderate then you are liable (for example if someone post instructions to sew a KKK hood and you refuse to remove that, but you remove other things, then you get sued for condoning hate speech)

That interpretation doesn't follow from GP's position of "if you are deciding what is acceptable speech, you're now responsible for it."

Removing off-topic posts is just as much "deciding what is acceptable speech" as is removing on-topic posts that happen to be posts I don't like. That is to say, the consideration of what is on-topic vs. off-topic is at its core a decision of what is acceptable.

Post reply on HN