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

31–40 of 195 posts

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

#31

Post by ch4s3 »

throwawaygh wrote: post #28

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 e…

> some sort of obligation to allow free speech

Isn’t that the opposite of what the text of the law says? Doesn’t it provide for protection when moderate content that “one may find objectionable”, which could basically be anything.

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

#32

Post by thoughtstheseus »

throwawaygh wrote: post #28

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 e…

Make it all dumb pipes and make users responsible for regulating what they see/hear. Make a market for filtering content, one great filter across a platform is not flexible.

Require platforms over a certain size to provide real-time data accessibility across platforms. Facebook and Twitter are monopolies by virtue of market position, anyone can build a platform that is functionally the same. Create competition here.

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

#33

Post by pavlov »

adventured wrote: post #21
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…

It’s surreal that a popular Republican position now is: “We want the government to impose giant fines and new regulations on the most successful American businesses of the past decade, hopefully destroying them.”

Regardless of the merits of the idea, it’s an amazing paradigm shift for the GOP.

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

#34

Post by belltaco »

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 I guess the same logic applies to the phone companies for calls and texts, since they maintain control over it?

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

#35

Post by belltaco »

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…

By that logic you would hold the phone company responsible for calls and texts happening over their network.

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

#36

Post by scohesc »

seemslegit wrote: post #19
snarf21 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what makes laws like this so silly. Look at how companies split into pieces to avoid corporate tax. They'll simply do the same here. Such a waste of time and effort and it really only affects the small companies which don't have this problem anyway. So dumb.

Yeah all those dumb secretaries, presidents, senators and the people who work for them, they really ought to be reading more HN to learn about how things work. Unless of course any company whose viability materially depends on Section 230 protections would have been dead in the water pretty much in any other jurisdiction on earth in the first place, the threat of moving out of the US was a naked bluff and the powers…

Yep.

If companies are willing to put up with the Chinese government telling them what to do, what to say, and how to operate their business in China, I'm pretty sure America will be fine.

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

#37

Post by 0134340 »

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.

Really, even though the platform you're using voluntarily chooses what you're allowed to post, as with almost all online platforms?

Besides that, you're framing this wrong. If I host a platform as I host you in my house, I have a right and a duty to make sure you aren't committing illegal actions within my domain. This is a fairly universal law, written and unwritten, that who and what you host in your domain is your responsibility. Why should a few privileged platforms get a free pass?

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

#38

Post by throwaway_USD »

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.

>"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.

Sometimes the arms dealers (sellers not manufacture) are liable for the actions of the gun owners.

There is no shortage of cases, I searched Walmart (because Walmart scale), but some examples:

1. Walmart Settles Lawsuit for Selling Gun Used in Murder by Neo-Nazi (https://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2018/11/walmart-settles-la...)

2. Wal-Mart sued over sale of bullets used in Pennsylvania murders (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pennsylvania-bullets/wal-...)

Sellers of guns and ammunition assumed they were protected from liability by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

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

#39

Post by internet_user »

throwaway_USD wrote: post #38
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.

>"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. Sometimes the arms dealers (sellers not manufacture) are liable for the actions of the gun owners. There is no shortage of cases, I searched Walmart (because Walmart scale), but some examples: 1. Walmart Settles Lawsuit for Selling Gun Used in Murder by Neo…

Pretty certain that settlement admits no guilt.

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

#40

Post by akersten »

0134340 wrote: post #37
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.

Really, even though the platform you're using voluntarily chooses what you're allowed to post, as with almost all online platforms? Besides that, you're framing this wrong. If I host a platform as I host you in my house, I have a right and a duty to make sure you aren't committing illegal actions within my domain. This is a fairly universal law, written and unwritten, that who and what you host in your domain is your…

I'm pretty sure the argument "if you invite someone into your house, you're responsible for their illegal actions" is plainly incorrect, but I'd be happy to see a citation of that statute.
Post reply on HN