DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation • Hacker News Board

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#331

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:56 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#332

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:57 AM UTC

ryukafalz wrote: post #285

BobbyJo wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And instantly every chat and email service without millions of dollars to throw at content filtering is forced to shut down. No, they’re not social network type services like Facebook or Twitter, but... section 230 doesn’t discriminate between types of online services!

[deleted]

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#333

Post by nullc » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 7:58 AM UTC

saurik wrote: post #98

treis wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law provides them immunity from civil suits. Apple as a provider can say they comply with section 230 and avoid any legal liability from people that may be harmed by their actions. In other words, you can't sue Apple because someone used iCloud to distribute child porn of you. The essential bargain struck for 230 was that providers get immunity in exchange for policing their system and helping law enforcement. Ap…

Ok, so I was under the impression that if you are say, a telephone network, that people can't sue you for stuff people do during phone calls, under the premise that the phone company doesn't moderate phone calls; and my understanding of the "bargain struck" is then that online web forums felt that centralized moderation was absolutely critical to spam prevention and search/discovery services (I disagree on the practi…

You nailed it.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#334

Post by nullc » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:03 AM 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…

> This law would make it illegal to host discussion forums such as Hacker News.

Not illegal, but extraordinarily legally risky. Perhaps YC has pockets deep enough, connections strong enough, and derives enough benefit to take that risk.

Something that is even more of a volunteer run labour of love? less likely.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#335

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:08 AM UTC

sgift wrote: post #313

cortesoft wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In this sense, law is similar to code, but far easier to exploit. I would disagree. I feel like programmers see logical contradictions or loop holes in laws and think that if they make the argument in court, the court will segfault and they will go free. In reality, courts use more inductive reasoning than computers, and aren't as easily tricked.

Courts are easily tricked, the hacks needed are just different from what most programmers assume them to be. The whole job of lawyers is hacking the court to get a more favorable outcome. If this wasn't true it wouldn't matter which lawyer you have since the court would always interpret law in exactly the same way.

> If this wasn't true it wouldn't matter which lawyer you have since the court would always interpret law in exactly the same way

Have you ever litigated?

Litigation isn’t about “hacking” the court. If that’s how a lawyer is selling themselves, you’re being taken for a ride.

Cases are about resolving novel ambiguities in the law. The vast majority of disputes never make it to court. The two sides lawyer up and one of them is advised that based on the facts the precedent is in the opponent’s favor. As such, settlement is advisable. In a minority of cases, precedent is mixed or not applicable—the facts and circumstances are truly novel with respect to the law. Given the law is finite and reality is infinite, this happens more often than you’d think.

Lawyers thus argue how the law should be extended. Remember, case law is law in common law countries. Judges opinions aren’t interpretations per se, but acts of rule making.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#336

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:25 AM UTC

salawat wrote: post #292

zerocrates wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The wording has to be accepted within the technical jargon of the field. Huh? If a majority Supreme Court decides a phrase "really" means X in a certain context, it means X for the rest of the courts. The "technical jargon of the field" notwithstanding. They're often the source of that jargon. The Slaughter-House Cases famously by a 5-4 vote reduced the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment to a dea…

The court that turned "Shall not be infringed" into "No really, it's okay to infringe on this particular combination of parts because it wasn't an arm at the time" should not in any way be underestimated for capacity to torture language.

> The court that turned "Shall not be infringed" into "No really, it's okay to infringe on this particular combination of parts because it wasn't an arm at the time"

Is there a case you’re referring to? Because in reality, it’s not uncommon for two “shall not be infringed” sections of the law or Constitution to come into conflict.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#337

Post by IanSanders » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:33 AM UTC

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…

>Purposefully

How is that going to be determined?

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#338

Post by lmm » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:34 AM UTC

vharuck wrote: post #320

lmm wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "undesirables" can make their own websites, which are totally protected from the government by the First Amendment. No they're not; the government has already shown itself able and willing to do an end-run around the First Amendment by e.g. pressurising payment processors to refuse to do business with such websites. > The owners of the shadow-banning websites should also have the right to decide what thoughts a…

>No they're not; the government has already shown itself able and willing to do an end-run around the First Amendment by e.g. pressurising payment processors to refuse to do business with such websites. I cannot see how a change to a law that's proposed by the enforcement arm of government will actually protect people from abuses done by that same enforcement arm. If they act in bad faith now, why assume good faith w…

> I cannot see how a change to a law that's proposed by the enforcement arm of government will actually protect people from abuses done by that same enforcement arm. If they act in bad faith now, why assume good faith will follow?

This seems like an argument that no government will ever reduce its own power, and so constitutional protections, due process etc. are all pointless. Even a single arm of the government is far from a monolith, and the boundaries of what government should and shouldn't do are always evolving. I'm sure this proposal isn't coming purely from the good of this administration's heart; part of it is public pressure, and part of it is the consideration that they may no longer be in power come November. But realpolitik is always a factor; good laws are still good laws.

> I don't think Amazon's user reviews are where uncomfortable discussions need to happen.

I'm sure a lot of vital IRL political discussion happens in the checkout queue at the supermarket (I'm sure that sounds like a joke, but I'm completely serious). As life moves online, we need a corresponding public sphere.

> But I do think the government demanding what should be discussed on servers owned by private citizens is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Private citizens acting in their capacity as private citizens are still free to discuss whatever they like, or ban whatever discussion they like. If you want to have a capaciously moderated website that's fine, but such a website will not and cannot be a Section 230 public communications provider.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#339

Post by samatman » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:40 AM UTC

saurik wrote: post #98

treis wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law provides them immunity from civil suits. Apple as a provider can say they comply with section 230 and avoid any legal liability from people that may be harmed by their actions. In other words, you can't sue Apple because someone used iCloud to distribute child porn of you. The essential bargain struck for 230 was that providers get immunity in exchange for policing their system and helping law enforcement. Ap…

Ok, so I was under the impression that if you are say, a telephone network, that people can't sue you for stuff people do during phone calls, under the premise that the phone company doesn't moderate phone calls; and my understanding of the "bargain struck" is then that online web forums felt that centralized moderation was absolutely critical to spam prevention and search/discovery services (I disagree on the practi…

> [iCloud Backup] should be end-to-end encrypted, but explicitly isn't

Just keep in mind that, when you say it should be, what you're saying is that Apple should make iCloud Backup work in such a way that, if the user loses the keys, Apple is completely unable to help them recover their data.

And, I don't agree. I can support it as an opt-in feature, but wouldn't use it; I expect sensitive applications, such as Signal, to encrypt their backups as indeed they do, and would prefer as a last resort to retain my precious exocortex, even if I lose my entropy.

And if I wouldn't use it, most people wouldn't, and Apple is right not to do it that way.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#340

Post by samatman » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:50 AM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #112

deadmik3 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It isn't semantics. We give protected classes extra protections because they are attributes of who a person is . To give the same protections to actions that people do would be wildly different. A salesperson should be able to be fired for shit-talking their own product. A customer service representative should be able to be fired for treating a customer inappropriately. The editor of a magazine should be allowed to…

Alright, so let's take you literally and seriously: A boss can't fire a homosexual for being homosexual, because that's something he is.

But can definitely fire him for anything he does, right? Like having a pride flag on his backpack? Or committing the speech act of saying "I'm gay"?