You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by teorema » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 2:59 PM UTC

heavyset_go wrote: post #73

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…

> Wouldn't repealing Section 230 mean more censorship and restrictions as the liability would be too great to be on the hook for what some random account might decide to publish, no? Yes, no one is going to run a service that hosts user created content if doing so means that they can be raided by the FBI in the middle of the night should a user find it funny to upload illegal content to a company's servers. Only enti…

This is the very sort of thing that led to the creation of common carrier status, with the tradeoffs involved. It seems to me to be the solution with ISPs and net neutrality, and there probably should be something similar with sites like Twitter (which is probably the point of Section 230).

I personally feel like moderation has gone way too far with social media, even though I'm far from politically conservative and definitely not a supporter of Trump. I think sites should lose some protected status if they start moderating excessively, as an incentive to moderate even less. Conversely, I think they should be granted a degree of immunity if they do.

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

#202

Post by seeseepeesuxx » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:10 PM UTC

twic wrote: post #180

praestigiare wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether you agree with it or not, the purpose is to remove funds from police, which many believe is a positive outcome. Look at police budgets, how that money is spent, how it affects communities to have 60-80% of their tax money go to police. Again, you may disagree, but removing money from the police is the point of the slogan.

The point is that "defund" means "remove all funding from", not "remove some funding from". The person carrying the sign in this photo doesn't want 20% fewer abortions, they want abortions to stop altogether: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12189446/mike-pence-planned-pa...

I've seen plenty of protest signs that say abolish police and prisons. I spent all summer locked inside studying the rhetoric and symbology of BLM and defund means defund to a non insignificant portion of the activists. Saying it means something else is pure gaslighting

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

#203

Post by TameAntelope » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:13 PM UTC

EE84M3i wrote: post #80

TameAntelope wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, "Defund the police" does literally mean "reduce funding to what we currently refer to as the police force" whereas "repeal section 230" couldn't (in your interpretation) literally mean "strike section 230 from the US code". The reality is what this article outlines towards the end; this is already covered by the 1st Amendment in large part, Section 230 does the bulk of its work in simplifying cou…

>For what it's worth, "Defund the police" does literally mean "reduce funding to what we currently refer to as the police force" I think the relevant part is that one definition of "defund" is (from Google answer box/featured snippet, only provided definition): >prevent from continuing to receive funds. So some people upon first hearing the phrase "defund the police" understand it to mean "prevent the police from con…

So you thought there was a large group of vocal people who believed that literally zero law enforcement was a genuine wish?

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

#204

Post by ViViDboarder » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:14 PM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #82

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…

Couldn't you make the same argument about stickied posts on old forums? I don't think how the content is displayed changes whether they are covered by section 230, and I think the anti-discriminaton exceptions would need to be more explicit to matter.

That depends on who is stickying them. If it’s a user, then it would still just be users deciding what you see and storing the content. A newsfeed on Facebook is a curation of user content. I believe that it is still covered as anyone choosing to forward content or repost content is also a curation, but it is something that could be re-examined and changed.

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

#205

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:16 PM UTC

recny wrote: post #199

roenxi wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judges are the ones we all officially trust to make judgments. It isn't better as such to get them involved, but it might become necessary. I won't worry about technicalities, because I have no idea what they are. But it is becoming abundantly clear that the social media companies have political power and are willing to wield it if they think that it is appropriate, similar to newspapers and television. It is reasona…

The problem with leaving it to the courts is, people who own small niche forums can't afford to fight legal battles. This will leave an internet for those who can (i.e the big players).

Also, courts have a habit of leaving arcane technical details to regulators and then we end up back at government regulation of internet speech.

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

#206

Post by zuminator » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:16 PM UTC

teorema wrote: post #201

heavyset_go wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't repealing Section 230 mean more censorship and restrictions as the liability would be too great to be on the hook for what some random account might decide to publish, no? Yes, no one is going to run a service that hosts user created content if doing so means that they can be raided by the FBI in the middle of the night should a user find it funny to upload illegal content to a company's servers. Only enti…

This is the very sort of thing that led to the creation of common carrier status, with the tradeoffs involved. It seems to me to be the solution with ISPs and net neutrality, and there probably should be something similar with sites like Twitter (which is probably the point of Section 230). I personally feel like moderation has gone way too far with social media, even though I'm far from politically conservative and…

A difference between common carriers like the phone company and the post office vs. internet websites is that your communication on common carriers is usually private. There's no reason for any moderation to take place.

Whereas on a web forum such as this, moderation is necessary for conversations to not descend into chaos.

Frankly I don't understand why people think moderation has gone too far. Is it that e.g. Twitter shouldn't be allowed to silence unpopular opinions because silencing unpopular opinions is always bad? Or is it that it's bad because Twitter is huge and influential. Would you have a problem with someone silencing a gun control fanatic who has appeared unwelcome on their private little gun collectors' website?

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

#207

Post by cujo » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:20 PM UTC

brigandish wrote: post #124

One might say that if a law is so misunderstood by so many and has an outcome that so many would disagree with then it should be replaced based on that fact alone, as what is more dangerous to a society than laws which rule over them that are misunderstood to such a great degree (this might be said of many other laws too). You can blame the people but we install law makers to produce good laws not bad ones (I wouldn'…

You can't say this law is misunderstood. How many people do you think have ever read the text of this law that are making claims on it?

Even in this thread it's clear that way too many commenters haven't read the article in question.

230 isn't complicated. People's ability/willingness to read and interpret it outside of online rhetoric is a problem.

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

#208

Post by jakelazaroff » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:22 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #183

modmans2nd wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Section 230 doesn’t give social media any more power than they have under the first amendment. It is simply a shield from nuisance lawsuits.

It does though. For example, it gives them the power to refuse to remove false information without being held responsible for it, which the first amendment does not give to publishers like the NYT.

That’s not true. The liability shield only covers content produced by other entities, e.g. tweets. Twitter is still liable for content it produces itself, such as fact checks and trend summaries.

Likewise, the New York Times is liable for the articles published by its own writers, but it bears no liability for the comments section.

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

#209

Post by annoyingnoob » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:22 PM UTC

colllectorof wrote: post #85

Dismissive article that misrepresents both why "normal" people out there are unhappy about section 230 and what the higher levels of conversation about changing it really look like right now[1]. Articles like this are read meat for Hacker News. You endlessly reassert your political bias while pretending you are "informing" some imaginary group of stupid people (who in reality isn't even here to be "informed"). [1] He…

I concur with your complaints about techdirt. Masnick comes across as self-righteous in most of the pieces on the web site that should be called the Daily Outrage. I think your first paragraph really describes techdirt and not HN.

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

#210

Post by cujo » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 3:29 PM UTC

parsimo2010 wrote: post #149

This is an informative article, but it is missing a couple key things. Maybe the article was strictly aiming to be factual, but it felt like it was taking the position that 230 is good and should stay in place. With the assumption that it means to argue for keeping 230, they failed to convince me that it was a necessary piece of regulation. Yes, they corrected many misconceptions, but at the end of the day there is s…

It sounds like you're really just mad because the big companies don't moderate evenly enough for you.

> replacing it with something that requires a reasonable level of moderation, or provides a little bit of protection for companies that have made a good attempt at moderation. That would be a much better incentive for companies than the incentive 230 currently provides.

I'll bite. I think TW/FB have done a reasonable job of moderating. Where do you set the bar? Where should the politically appointed judge hearing the case set the bar? Your solution is just moving the problem directly into the sites of the political party in power.