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

DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 392 posts

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#321

Post by __blockcipher__ »

dillondoyle wrote: post #318
slaymaker1907 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notably, there is no carve out for factually untrue information. So you can't remove posts claiming that silver solution will cure Covid...

But isn't that covered in the new last section 'good faith'? where so long as it's clearly defined in TOS and moderation policy you can remove it. E.g. fb has a more clear policy that's public that says no false facts that can cause harm. I'm a 100% skeptical of this administration and the (run on rant ahead) insanely religious zealot by the name of Barr who is terrifying in trying to force his crazy beliefs on all o…

I don’t understand why Barr is hated by so many. I assume purely partisan reasons? He is very well spoken, principled, and in retrospect his summary of the Mueller Report was completely accurate (despite news articles I read at the time that had me convinced he was some kind of evil mastermind).

The only thing I don’t like about Barr is it’s hard to see him curtailing the surveillance state, but frankly that applies too almost everyone in politics since those who speak out against the cia/nsa tend to get into unfortunate high-speed car accidents.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#322

Post by __blockcipher__ »

nkozyra wrote: post #259
djur wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the legitimate government interest in disallowing shadowbanning?

Well "legitimate" is open for interpretation. I'd say this administration has resonated with its base by treating bans as politically-motivated.

They are politically motivated. For example, I’ve been banned from Twitter for defending Kyle Rittenhouse, who engaged in lawful self defense against a number of violent assailants. Why? Because the left has decided it serves their interests to paint him as a mass murderer (indeed Facebook has an official policy that he is a mass murderer).

Facebook also regularly censors viral pro-trump content and project veritas has exposed this.

I wish it weren’t so, but it is. I’ve experienced it firsthand.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#323

Post by __blockcipher__ »

ROARosen wrote: post #77

I don't care for most of it except this: >> Carve-Out for Actors Who Purposefully Blind Themselves and Law Enforcement to Illicit Material >>...it makes little sense to apply “Good Samaritan” immunity to a provider that intentionally designs or operates its services in a way that impairs its ability to identify criminal activity occurring on (or through) its services, or to produce relevant information to government…

This sounds like the EARN IT act. Very scary. Would de-facto outlaw e2e encryption

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#324

Post by ashtonkem »

deadmik3 wrote: post #82
kube-system wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same is 100% true about religion. 1A does not give you protection from religious discrimination among persons and corporations. It is the Civil Rights Act that does.

Don't be semantic, my point is why isn't speech codified at the same level? Clearly at some point someone said "freedom of religion should mean protection from persons and corporations", why can't we say the same about speech?

When discussing the nuance of legislation and constitutional law, there is no such thing as being too pedantic. The difference between something being enshrined in law, something being protected by the constitution, and something being protected by jurisprudence based on the constitution are really big, important differences.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#325

Post by 082349872349872 »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #203
firebird84 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a tipline isn't so bad on its own, but then the problem becomes: User leaves unverifiable tip, what do you do with it? It's not like you can break the encryption...

Sounds like we are turning our entire website infrastructure into a 1984 monitoring system

Ingsoc didn't monitor proles, and didn't always monitor inner party members, so I'd claim its monitoring reach was only somewhere between half and a quarter of our entire website infrastructure.

Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ6LGrr8iEg

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#326

Post by luckylion »

judge2020 wrote: post #255
qball wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That impression is correct; the precedent is here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc .). A lot of people don't really seem to understand that about S. 230- services that exist basically to pass messages have never needed the protection and that won't change. The best example outside of messaging services is probably content delivery networks, and I'll pick on CloudFlare because they're a gr…

> As long as CloudFlare is fine with just taking money and serving content, no matter whose it is, they have the legal immunity as intended. As soon as they decide (on a whim) to deny service based on content, as they did a while back, that legal immunity vanishes. It would be catastrophic to their business to make that decision (especially considering everything else CloudFlare hosts), and that's the point. Except t…

Does CF actively look for malware, CP etc to throw them out, or are they responding to law enforcement in that regard?

My understanding is that the hurdle to get something booted from CF is extremely high, which is why it's very well liked in both copy right infringement (torrents) and for general scammers trying to hide their server locations.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#327

Post by girvo »

BobbyJo wrote: post #268
ryukafalz wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, this is the one section that I don’t want added. The “Bad Samaritan carve-out” seems to cover cases where the platform is aware of the content pretty well, and I’d support adding that. This is about making them liable even when they aren’t aware of it, which is problematic for any site that handles anything user-generated, especially if you don’t have an army of moderators like Facebook does.

Maybe needing an army of moderators is just the cost of doing business when it comes to hosting user content. I'm weary of that change being made, but really, I don't see a viable alternative, or a good argument against it. If you can't moderate content at some scale, then maybe you just shouldn't host content at that scale. I think there may be a light, or a deeper darkness, that comes out of this though. We may see…

So the big platforms get to have an even larger moat. Surely you can see an issue with that?

And automated systems have their own huge problems.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#328

Post by girvo »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #321
dillondoyle wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't that covered in the new last section 'good faith'? where so long as it's clearly defined in TOS and moderation policy you can remove it. E.g. fb has a more clear policy that's public that says no false facts that can cause harm. I'm a 100% skeptical of this administration and the (run on rant ahead) insanely religious zealot by the name of Barr who is terrifying in trying to force his crazy beliefs on all o…

I don’t understand why Barr is hated by so many. I assume purely partisan reasons? He is very well spoken, principled, and in retrospect his summary of the Mueller Report was completely accurate (despite news articles I read at the time that had me convinced he was some kind of evil mastermind). The only thing I don’t like about Barr is it’s hard to see him curtailing the surveillance state, but frankly that applies…

Yeah, somehow I doubt you're actually asking in good faith.

Barr himself is horrifically partisan, which as the AG of your entire country is scary as all hell. Just read his speech in November 2019 to The Federalist Society (which itself is horrifying, the societies goals are simply at odds with what the USA has claimed to be).

It's as partisan as it gets.

Or is that okay, because its in-line with your own opinions?

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#329

Post by joering2 »

dannyw wrote: post #270
ummonk wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This seems like a fantastic reform. It may lead to Twitter finally applying the same moderation standards to Trump, ie banning his account.

Slim chances. My source close to twitter feeding hose tells me Trump tweets and retweets are worth few million dollars in ad display daily. If they were to ban him, soon a stockholder lawsuit would follow that Twitter is willfully throwing revenue away.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#330

Post by nullc »

BobbyJo wrote: post #268
ryukafalz wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, this is the one section that I don’t want added. The “Bad Samaritan carve-out” seems to cover cases where the platform is aware of the content pretty well, and I’d support adding that. This is about making them liable even when they aren’t aware of it, which is problematic for any site that handles anything user-generated, especially if you don’t have an army of moderators like Facebook does.

Maybe needing an army of moderators is just the cost of doing business when it comes to hosting user content. I'm weary of that change being made, but really, I don't see a viable alternative, or a good argument against it. If you can't moderate content at some scale, then maybe you just shouldn't host content at that scale. I think there may be a light, or a deeper darkness, that comes out of this though. We may see…

So you'd be okay with HN shutting down?

I'm not involved with HN, but it seems likely that many smaller venues esp ones that aren't big money makers, including most mailing lists and small sites like HN would be advised to discontinue operating if exposed to this kind of extraordinary liability over content which they had no knowledge of.

"Actual knowledge" should be your preferred approach to your concern... but nothing will probably solve your problem because extremely well funded platforms are substantially immune to the law in any case, just as they're immune to common decency.

Post reply on HN