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

381–390 of 392 posts

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#381

Post by whateveracct »

yunohn wrote: post #121
jakelazaroff wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's approachable, and doesn't fall into the interpretation biases of the reporter. I agree with this, but don't forget that interpretation biases will still come into play as the law is enforced — the biases of police, lawyers and judges. So it still makes sense to read others' interpretations of what this might mean in practice.

I think this is a systemic issue on hackernews. People forgetting reality exists, and always pointing at the rules and acting as if they're infallible. You'd think /hackers/ would understand that rules are for show. I've seen this regarding serious legislation like this or even something as mundane as Apple's app store "guidelines".

Hackernews users take the principle of charity too far. I have seen too many people here take Trump in good faith, for example. When you give authoritarians the benefit of the doubt, they'll take it and RUN.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#382

Post by tomcam »

nullc wrote: post #330
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…

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 not…

Wait, hacker news is moderated quite actively and skillfully. Not trying to be a smart ass, I just don’t know what point you’re making.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#383

Post by xpe »

xpe wrote: post #99
esoterica wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private organizations have zero obligation to be fair and impartial. If you want a company to be run differently, start your own. It's funny how conservatives were totally on board with deregulation and perfectly fine with corporations steamrolling every one else as long as they were aligned with conservative objectives. Then the moment a powerful corporate faction with liberal-ish sensibilities emerges, they freak o…

1. Please note that ‘obligation’ is not the only standard at play. Companies exist in a social and economic context. (I have previous comments on this topic that can be easily found.) 2. The ‘if you want a company to be run differently, start your own’ argument is tiresome and weak. There are (and should be) many mechanisms to influence corporate behavior. 3. Even the pre-Trump Republican Party has long taken flack f…

I’m interested in the reactions and feedback; next time, I’ll split the comment into distinct parts. Would any voters care to detail their POV by #?

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#384

Post by xpe »

leetcrew wrote: post #114
xpe wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Please note that ‘obligation’ is not the only standard at play. Companies exist in a social and economic context. (I have previous comments on this topic that can be easily found.) 2. The ‘if you want a company to be run differently, start your own’ argument is tiresome and weak. There are (and should be) many mechanisms to influence corporate behavior. 3. Even the pre-Trump Republican Party has long taken flack f…

> libertarians who essentially argue that one core principle should guide their political philosophy. this isn't really true of libertarianism even. the word "aggression" from the NAP does a lot of heavy lifting and is subject to a lot of different interpretations.

There is a range of libertarian thought, but all share one principle: liberty.

The ‘non-aggression principle’, in my experience of libertarianism at least, is not as central / common across libertarian writings.

Wikipedia:

> Libertarianism (from French: libertaire, "libertarian"; from Latin: libertas, "freedom") is a political philosophy and movement that upholds liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.[2] Libertarianism shares a skepticism of authority and state power, but libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions. Different categorizations have been used to distinguish various forms of libertarianism.[3][4] This is done to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines.[5]

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#385

Post by xpe »

leetcrew wrote: post #114
xpe wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Please note that ‘obligation’ is not the only standard at play. Companies exist in a social and economic context. (I have previous comments on this topic that can be easily found.) 2. The ‘if you want a company to be run differently, start your own’ argument is tiresome and weak. There are (and should be) many mechanisms to influence corporate behavior. 3. Even the pre-Trump Republican Party has long taken flack f…

> libertarians who essentially argue that one core principle should guide their political philosophy. this isn't really true of libertarianism even. the word "aggression" from the NAP does a lot of heavy lifting and is subject to a lot of different interpretations.

My #3 point, in case it wasn’t clear, is this: any particular form of libertarianism, in comparison with many other political philosophies (such as as the platform of progressives in/near the Democratic Party, has considerably fewer principles that must be traded off. Libertarianism is widely regarded as ‘intellectually simpler’.

My #3B point emphasizes this question: ‘Is simplicity best? Or simply the easiest?’ (to quote a song)

In my view, the respectability of private mortalities is not strongly correlated with the simplicity of their core principles. (For background on what I mean by public and private moralities, see writings by Robert Kane, such as ‘Through the Moral Maze’)

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#386

Post by vcxy »

gwright wrote: post #180
vcxy wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rights protected in the first amendment don't apply to a department of the executive branch drafting language for the legislative branch.

What are you getting at here? That the Constitution doesn't prevent Congress from passing a law that prohibits the DOJ from participating in the formulation of public policy? This just seems like a nonsensical rabbit hole to explore to me.

It seemed to me that the claim was: You can't support the first amendment and be against DOJ participating in legislation. My point was that you in fact can hold that position. The first amendment doesn't extend so far as to make this position illogical.

To be clear, I'm not claiming I hold that position. In fact, I fully agree with your comment in reply to the top level comment we're under.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#387

Post by vcxy »

beervirus wrote: post #175
vcxy wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rights protected in the first amendment don't apply to a department of the executive branch drafting language for the legislative branch.

The comment was about “these people,” not the DOJ qua DOJ.

I guess I don't get it. I thought (and it still seems) that "these people" refers to the DOJ. To be clear, I don't agree with the person you replied to, so we probably agree in the end, I just didn't agree with your comment as I read it either. But I guess I'm not parsing something correctly here...

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#388

Post by leetcrew »

xpe wrote: post #384
leetcrew wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> libertarians who essentially argue that one core principle should guide their political philosophy. this isn't really true of libertarianism even. the word "aggression" from the NAP does a lot of heavy lifting and is subject to a lot of different interpretations.

There is a range of libertarian thought, but all share one principle: liberty. The ‘non-aggression principle’, in my experience of libertarianism at least, is not as central / common across libertarian writings. Wikipedia: > Libertarianism (from French: libertaire, "libertarian"; from Latin: libertas, "freedom") is a political philosophy and movement that upholds liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to m…

doesn't that wikipedia quote kinda make my point in a different way though? if the concept "liberty" is central rather than the NAP, isn't it just as subjective? the pursuit of freedom from coercion at the point of a gun vs freedom from coercion by economic necessity lead one toward very different conclusions.

to be clear, I certainly don't intend to shit on libertarianism. I'm far from an expert on the philosophy, and I do feel libertarians make a lot of valuable contributions to political discussions. I wouldn't want to live in a world where a libertarian got every single thing on their wishlist, though.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#389

Post by curryst »

waheoo wrote: post #298
anonHacker2 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Replace Vague Terminology in (c)(2). First, the Department supports replacing the vague catch-all "otherwise objectionable" language... This disallows the common practice of open-ended moderation criteria such as "Be kind. Don't be snarky". Proposed section (c)(1)(b) removes the safe harbor except for moderation criteria on the list in proposed (c)(2)(a), which is: "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively vi…

Isn't this the point of the legislation? If you want to be deemed a public square type of space that is fine but you don't then get to impose arbitrary rules about what is said, that would mean it is not a public place and is in fact a private space being editorialized by your private rulings on what speech should be allowed. This is a very good move and clarifies everything for everyone.

That has nothing to do with Section 230 protection. Nor am I aware of any large Internet site that has ever pretended to be a public square (beyond Reddit, who announced the change).

I don't see why this is a good move, other than opening up a bunch of sites to liability. And it's going to make the ToS even longer so that they can make it "particular". Who wins here exactly?

Post reply on HN