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

You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 309 posts

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#21

Post by kennywinker »

nenenndndndn wrote: post #11

Actually quite an awesome read here. But also kind of funny that the resource does a great job explaining what 230 is not — while a terrible job of what it is. At this point, I have no idea what Section 230 is. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t really care for the details of this. Hell, I barely understand how a bill is actually turned into law. Though, I do know that the POTUS vs Twitter showdown today has put a bittersw…

What law would that be? Internet service providers must provide their service to everyone? Great, now it’s illegal to kick people off your minecraft server and the new york times MUST publish my op-ed. Twitter gave orange-julius cesar a platform, they can take it away.

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#22

Post by npunt »

scruple wrote: post #19
erichocean wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every alternative to Twitter is shittier. It's practically a law of nature.

Twitter itself, today, is a shittier version of itself, a decade ago.

In a way though so is life.

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#23

Post by conistonwater »

Meekro wrote: post #18
awb wrote: post #4

> if you're in a real rush, just read Section (c)(1), which is only 26 words, and is the part that basically every single court decision (and there have been many) has relied on. > (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information…

You're right, repealing section 230 would result in more censorship, not less. But I think "repeal section 230" has been shorthand slogan for a more detailed set of proposals (much like "defund the police" doesn't mean $0 budgets for all law enforcement). For example, see the DoJ's proposal to amend and clarify section 230 [1] [2]. Among other changes, they suggest limiting the extent to which a platform can moderate…

Wait, so is the idea of those proposals that the federal government or the courts or the lawyers are going to be in charge of deciding what counts as aggressive moderation as opposed to regular moderation? Is that supposed to be better?

Also, your comment is confusing because "limiting moderation to illegal content and viagra spam" was the legal limit before section 230, if I understood correctly, so it's not making it clear what the difference is between "clarifying" and "repealing".

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#24

Post by lovecg »

topkai22 wrote: post #10

I was struck by a thought while reading the article- are the feeds of social media companies actually protected under section 230? My Facebook feed is more than just a simple serving of my friends content, it’s a work in and of itself (like a collection of essays). It seems like a stretch given that the law states that they can’t be considered the publisher of “information” provided by others, but possible as these s…

That’s an interesting train of thought. I also wonder about content that’s been modified in some significant way (fact check labels not clearly separated from the content itself for example) by the provider: is there a point where the provider could become liable? I.e. if I made a joke website where you could post comments and it would auto-replace any mention of “topkai22” with “the notorious scoundrel topkai22”, could you sue me directly?

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#25

Post by npunt »

nenenndndndn wrote: post #11

Actually quite an awesome read here. But also kind of funny that the resource does a great job explaining what 230 is not — while a terrible job of what it is. At this point, I have no idea what Section 230 is. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t really care for the details of this. Hell, I barely understand how a bill is actually turned into law. Though, I do know that the POTUS vs Twitter showdown today has put a bittersw…

> I hope they pass a new law whatever it is.

To mix metaphors, blank checks are rarely balanced. Be very very careful what you wish for here.

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#27

Post by liaukovv »

hemloc_io wrote: post #20
topkai22 wrote: post #10

I was struck by a thought while reading the article- are the feeds of social media companies actually protected under section 230? My Facebook feed is more than just a simple serving of my friends content, it’s a work in and of itself (like a collection of essays). It seems like a stretch given that the law states that they can’t be considered the publisher of “information” provided by others, but possible as these s…

I've also wondered about this, I suspect because Facebook hired 75% of their lawyers in the last 3 months we will find out soon. I could see one argument about how an algorithm doesn't really editorialize. A metaphor that is often used is that social media companies is that they are more like a newsstand than an editorial board on a newspaper. A newsstand isn't under any obligation to sell all the papers available in…

These websites are like the proverbial 10000 monkeys generating random symbols. Tech companies can form any narrative by picking parts they promote, does that still make them not responsible for the result?

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#28

Post by lovecg »

kennywinker wrote: post #21
nenenndndndn wrote: post #11

Actually quite an awesome read here. But also kind of funny that the resource does a great job explaining what 230 is not — while a terrible job of what it is. At this point, I have no idea what Section 230 is. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t really care for the details of this. Hell, I barely understand how a bill is actually turned into law. Though, I do know that the POTUS vs Twitter showdown today has put a bittersw…

What law would that be? Internet service providers must provide their service to everyone? Great, now it’s illegal to kick people off your minecraft server and the new york times MUST publish my op-ed. Twitter gave orange-julius cesar a platform, they can take it away.

There’s a general anxiety of a big company taking a way a big chunk of your life on a whim. It’s not fun to be banned by Google or Amazon. I’m not doing anything wrong to get banned, but that seems backwards somehow. (“don’t break the law and you have nothing to worry about” gives off the same creepy vibe).

It’s a similar feeling when driving next to cop while doing nothing wrong or dealing with a government bureaucracy. They have all (or a lot) of the power and decision making is never perfect.

So perhaps this is an argument for stronger antitrust or whatever. More competition would reduce this anxiety for the regular person.

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#29

Post by samvher »

Acrobatic_Road wrote: post #26

Before today I was a strong defender of section 230. After today, I say burn it all down.

This makes me feel like I missed something. Are you writing this because you read the article today or did something else happen?

Re: You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA

#30

Post by toast0 »

nenenndndndn wrote: post #11

Actually quite an awesome read here. But also kind of funny that the resource does a great job explaining what 230 is not — while a terrible job of what it is. At this point, I have no idea what Section 230 is. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t really care for the details of this. Hell, I barely understand how a bill is actually turned into law. Though, I do know that the POTUS vs Twitter showdown today has put a bittersw…

Section 230 protects websites from liability arising from content that a user created. It also protects users from liability arising from content another user created that they shared.

It protects sites from liability from moderating or not moderating content.

Some liabilities are not exempted. Federal criminal law, intellectual property, privacy, and sex trafficing law are not affected. Its effect on state law is complex (as described in the article).

Post reply on HN