DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation • Hacker News Board

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#211

Post by mlthoughts2018 » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:50 PM UTC

mjh2539 wrote: post #181

buttersbrian wrote: post #63

Phrases like "has an objectively reasonable belief" give me chills and is RIPE for abuse. Also, modifying the language of Civil Liability to include good faith efforts for language that could be deemed "unlawful" is .... sneaky, and again, ripe for abuse.

The irony is that phrases like that are actually the least ripe for abuse because there is a ton of case law concerning them. I.e. they have a very specific meaning in regard to the law/statute/code. They're legalese, and legalese is your (lawyer's) friend.

The lack of imagination for how Republican court packing could flip that around is dire.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#212

Post by ummonk » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:52 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #76

InTheArena wrote: post #19

here is the DoJ's breakdown and red-line changes: 1. Incentivizing Online Platforms to Address Illicit Content The first category of potential reforms is aimed at incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online, while preserving the core of Section 230’s immunity for defamation. a. Bad Samaritan Carve-Out. First, the Department proposes denying Section 230 immunity to truly bad actors.…

Oof. That's a good source. Section 5c is particularly problematic. It disallows shadow-bans if I'm reading correctly. Section f9 is...suspicious. Section d4 seems painful for small providers. You lose good samaritan status if there isn't a good way to contact you. Section c2A is the important one. It basically means that a site cannot remove content unless it is objectively obscene or extreme. Section g5A suggests th…

It seems to be that under this reform to maintain Section 230 safe harbor either you would have clear and consistently enforced ToS or if not relying on a ToS you would be removing material that is objectively obscene or extreme.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#213

Post by g42gregory » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:53 PM UTC

Wouldn’t it be better to keep the existing 230 for companies with less than, say, 100 million users? And remove 230 protection altogether for companies with more than 100 million users? This would let the startup ecosystem flourish. It would also seriously hamstrung large companies. Would this be a bad thing, though?

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#214

Post by ashtonkem » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:53 PM UTC

gwright wrote: post #183

ashtonkem wrote: post #145

Yeah, that’s not suspicious at all. Also, the DOJ really should back off here. They’re an article II department, their job is enforcement and not legislation. If the law should change, that is emphatically congresses responsibility. They can recommend all they want, it should be valueless though.

> DOJ really should back off here > They can recommend all they want Isn't that what they are doing, recommending? Your statements seem contradictory.

And we should tell them to off.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#215

Post by teawrecks » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:55 PM UTC

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #153

hughw wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any actual Samaritans out there? How do you feel about that language?

I had no idea Samaritans were an extant group of people, but Wikipedia tells me that there are around 1,000 people who self-identify as Samaritan, mostly around Mount Gerizim and Tel Aviv. Fascinating.

No doubt they all frequent this forum

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#216

Post by heavyset_go » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:58 PM UTC

anonHacker2 wrote: post #105

This law would make it illegal to host discussion forums such as Hacker News. Subparagraph (c)1(B) says that the only safe harbor for removing content is (c)(2). (c)(2)(A) restricts the criteria that can be used to remove content to the following: "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, promoting terrorism or violent extremism, harassing, promoting self-harm, or unlawful". The current Hacker News Gui…

With such proposed laws on the books, I don't see how anyone would start a new company that does anything at all with user generated content, as the risk for significant criminal liability is just too high. Only billion dollar companies would be able to afford to curate and make sure not a single law was broken ever, at any time, by one of their users.

Imagine having your home raided in the middle of the night because someone thought it would be funny to upload illegal content to your startup's servers. Now imagine being bankrupted and sent to prison afterwards.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#217

Post by polyomino » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 11:01 PM UTC

g42gregory wrote: post #213

Wouldn’t it be better to keep the existing 230 for companies with less than, say, 100 million users? And remove 230 protection altogether for companies with more than 100 million users? This would let the startup ecosystem flourish. It would also seriously hamstrung large companies. Would this be a bad thing, though?

It's unknown whether disparate startups would do a better job with things like attacks from state actors compared to the giants. Obviously, as things become more consequential, people would rather have entities they can hold accountable. However I think our mechanisms of holding entities to account are ineffective, big or small.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#218

Post by heavyset_go » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 11:03 PM UTC

purple-again wrote: post #96

analyte123 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just illegal content , it includes “facilitation” of any illegal activity. The logs are only required when law enforcement notifies you of the activity. But if they think you know about the activity and are consciously promoting it, they don’t even need to notify you. My guess is they will probably revise this part.

Reddit has a subreddit that’s main purpose is helping you to shoplift without getting caught. I always assumed it was free speech laws protecting it. Does this mean there will be another incoming subreddit purge?

Discussion about using marijuana in medicinal context would also need to be purged, because it is an illegal Schedule I substance at the federal level.

People that use any drug are free to talk about it because of the first amendment, but the proposed legislation would prevent anyone from being able to share their experiences online, because their service providers might be liable for facilitating illegal activity.

That's a scary precedent.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#219

Post by hawkice » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 11:05 PM UTC

gwright wrote: post #177

hawkice wrote: post #133

Unsurprisingly, this is pretty horrifying for anyone who cares about either the 1st or 4th amendments (and the 5th amendment considerations of 'you can't blind yourself to bad content stuff', that's amazingly bad). It blows my mind this isn't a separations of powers concern to even allow these people to draft language or make any statements on the record of what they think the law ought to be.

> It blows my mind this isn't a separations of powers concern to even allow these people to draft language or make any statements on the record of what they think the law ought to be. That seem to be an untenable position. Legislation is drafted with input from lots of different groups including the agencies that might be enforcing the legislation. Proposing legislative changes isn't infringing on the powers of the L…

You want to pay a cop to write the law? Put it under their seal, the one they use to exercise police powers?

Sure, other people vote on it. But it stinks.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#220

Post by ideamotor » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 11:09 PM UTC

yunohn wrote: post #200

ideamotor wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hackers don't read news on Hacker News. Programmers do. So, quite ironically, you are doing precisely what you are talking about when you take the words "hacker news" too literally.

Sure, I know. HN is about tech news, maybe with a startup bent. But, I thought what a lot of programmers would have in common were innovative or uncommon angles, "hacking" of a sort. I don't think rulebook following coders are particularly interested in debating like this on HN.

I don't really have the pulse of programmers but I'd imagine this is precisely the sort of thing they'd prefer doing over hard work. It may change, but there is still quite a bit of DIY culture in programming for better and worse. Just look at all the daily new syntactic sugar you can find. What are those if not innovative angles to get things to work more literally?