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

FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 261 posts

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#51

Post by magicalist »

notankies wrote: post #42
tzs wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only partially correct. Some laws that require executive action to interpret and enforce leave it up to executive agencies to fill in the details. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is one such law, which is why the FCC plays such a big role in net neutrality. Section 230 is not such a law. It creates a civil liability shield for interactive computer services and states who that applies to and how it is to be…

> it creates a civil liability shield for interactive computer services and states who that applies to and how it is to be used. Right, and the limits of that liability shield are not well enough defined in the law so the policy must define the limits until Congress acts to clarify the law. Hence the rulemaking. Facebook and Twitter's actions yesterday and the controversy over the role of 230 make the lack of clarity…

> the limits of that liability shield are not well enough defined in the law

Can you give an example limit you're imagining that would pass muster? To me

> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected

doesn't leave much to the imagination, and AFAIK courts have consistently backed that up.

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#52

Post by [deleted] »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #21

I think that every company should decide if they're a "publisher" or a "platform". If you're a platform, you're not responsible for what your users say (except directly illegal stuff, eg. child porn), and have no say in what stays on, or gets removed/hidden (except, again, illegal stuff). If you're a publisher, you have a say what is posted on your site, and you carry full responsibility for all the onsite content. W…

[deleted]

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#53

Post by blhack »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #21

I think that every company should decide if they're a "publisher" or a "platform". If you're a platform, you're not responsible for what your users say (except directly illegal stuff, eg. child porn), and have no say in what stays on, or gets removed/hidden (except, again, illegal stuff). If you're a publisher, you have a say what is posted on your site, and you carry full responsibility for all the onsite content. W…

That is exactly what section 230 already does.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Whats being talked about here is stripping the assumption that twitter is acting in good faith, and therefore removing the protection they get from this section.

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#54

Post by bigbubba »

pitaj wrote: post #27
pb7 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The number would have been significantly lower if they had used something more effective to inform the public. Genuine question: what would that be exactly? I agree that government shouldn't only use private sector communication channels as the primary channel.

The same system as Amber alerts

They used this system in Seattle a few days in a row to announce the daytime curfews instated during the rioting this summer.

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#55

Post by juniper_strong »

the_pwner224 wrote: post #33
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #21

I think that every company should decide if they're a "publisher" or a "platform". If you're a platform, you're not responsible for what your users say (except directly illegal stuff, eg. child porn), and have no say in what stays on, or gets removed/hidden (except, again, illegal stuff). If you're a publisher, you have a say what is posted on your site, and you carry full responsibility for all the onsite content. W…

This does not work. Example: I want to set up a forum where people can discuss a specific topic. Such as the Arch Linux forum, or ones for vehicles ( https://www.ninja400riders.com/ , https://www.civicx.com/forum/ ). I am clearly not a publisher; I do produce content and do not want to produce content. So I am a platform. Am I no longer allowed to decide what is acceptable on my platform? Even if I am running a forum…

>> You can't have platforms without moderation

The cell phone network is a platform and it has no moderation.

If you want to decide what is acceptable content, you're not a platform, you're a publisher. A stated rationale for protecting internet platform providers was to provide true diversity of political discourse. It wasn't to make it easy to run a forum for Ninja 400 motorcycle fans.

You want to moderate content, fine, you're a publisher and you should be liable for the content you publish. The same way you would be if you published that content as a newspaper or magazine instead of over the internet.

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#56

Post by dexen »

akersten wrote: post #32
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #21

I think that every company should decide if they're a "publisher" or a "platform". If you're a platform, you're not responsible for what your users say (except directly illegal stuff, eg. child porn), and have no say in what stays on, or gets removed/hidden (except, again, illegal stuff). If you're a publisher, you have a say what is posted on your site, and you carry full responsibility for all the onsite content. W…

HackerNews could not exist in your proposed world. I doubt YC would hire a full-time staff of moderators to vet every single post. Since we remove things for being off-topic or overly mean, the only possible conclusion is that HN would shut down because they do not want to bear liability for the posts they leave up. The Internet as we know it would not exist without S230. Please read this[0] for a primer. [0]: https:…

>HackerNews could not exist in your proposed world

Provably, definitively wrong.

1. HN relies on the "platform" choice to avoid responsibility for 3rd party posts. HN also relies on operators like dang moderating at the server side.

2. The proposed model would prevent operators moderating at the server side, when the "platform" model was selected.

3. Historically, Usenet had workflow, content, and userbase similar to HN - multiuser, near-realtime threaded discussions with text and links, on technical & related subjects.

4. Usenet didn't rely on centralized moderation by the operators; instead the moderation was performed at the client side, by end users. This was entirely sufficient for the purpose. This was done partly in collaborative ways, with sharing of moderation tools & datafiles.

5. Certain groups were centrally moderated through middlemen; participation in those was optional, and content was explicitly submitted to moderation. Those were generally ran in parallel to similar unmoderated groups.

HN, and other fora, would do just fine as "platforms whose operators abstain from interfering in the flow of content", as informed by the historical precedent.

It irks me how quickly we forget the hard wrought lessons from the early internet.

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#57

Post by khuey »

juniper_strong wrote: post #55
the_pwner224 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does not work. Example: I want to set up a forum where people can discuss a specific topic. Such as the Arch Linux forum, or ones for vehicles ( https://www.ninja400riders.com/ , https://www.civicx.com/forum/ ). I am clearly not a publisher; I do produce content and do not want to produce content. So I am a platform. Am I no longer allowed to decide what is acceptable on my platform? Even if I am running a forum…

>> You can't have platforms without moderation The cell phone network is a platform and it has no moderation. If you want to decide what is acceptable content, you're not a platform, you're a publisher. A stated rationale for protecting internet platform providers was to provide true diversity of political discourse. It wasn't to make it easy to run a forum for Ninja 400 motorcycle fans. You want to moderate content,…

> A stated rationale for protecting internet platform providers was to provide true diversity of political discourse.

Citation needed.

The most prominent case that led to the passage of section 230 was the decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. which had nothing to do with politics.

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#58

Post by jellicle »

blhack wrote: post #53
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #21

I think that every company should decide if they're a "publisher" or a "platform". If you're a platform, you're not responsible for what your users say (except directly illegal stuff, eg. child porn), and have no say in what stays on, or gets removed/hidden (except, again, illegal stuff). If you're a publisher, you have a say what is posted on your site, and you carry full responsibility for all the onsite content. W…

That is exactly what section 230 already does. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Whats being talked about here is stripping the assumption that twitter is acting in good faith, and therefore removing the protection they get from this section.

So much confusion about this. What the prior commenter describes is exactly the OPPOSITE of what section 230 does.

Under current law, companies are free to - specifically encouraged to - moderate and delete content as much as they want, while they are also immunized from being treated as the publisher of that content and immunized from any liability for that moderation and deletion of content.

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#59

Post by the8472 »

sfkdjf9j3j wrote: post #50
the8472 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A platform does not mean there can be no moderation. Part of the platform can be offering moderation tools. One could also draw a distinction between burying content vs. completely deleting it. A lot of HN moderation already works by just dropping the content from the frontpage or making comments invisible rather than outright deleting it. I presume the FCC would still consider this

I think the GP post was specifically saying that if you're a "platform" you cannot moderate content. You are required to distribute anything users write on your "platform" that is not illegal (in the US?).

The platform operator can't. That's how common carriers work (telephone, your ISP etc.). But things running on that platform could. Basically look at reddit and perhaps take it up a notch. If the platform operator does not want to be associated with some of the stuff happening on their site then perhaps they should deemphasize their branding. It wouldn't be "reddit/watchpeopledie" just "watchpeopledie".

I not sure how this could work for a single-purpose community like HN. Maybe if YC ran a neutral HNaaS then the HN-prime could be operated and moderated by independent staff.

An alternative approach would be exemptions for non-profit sites.

I think it would be possible to operate within these broad rules if the details are crafted right, but even then it would require significant adjustments for many site operators.

Re: FCC to move ahead with 'rulemaking' on Section 230

#60

Post by jolmg »

juniper_strong wrote: post #55
the_pwner224 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does not work. Example: I want to set up a forum where people can discuss a specific topic. Such as the Arch Linux forum, or ones for vehicles ( https://www.ninja400riders.com/ , https://www.civicx.com/forum/ ). I am clearly not a publisher; I do produce content and do not want to produce content. So I am a platform. Am I no longer allowed to decide what is acceptable on my platform? Even if I am running a forum…

>> You can't have platforms without moderation The cell phone network is a platform and it has no moderation. If you want to decide what is acceptable content, you're not a platform, you're a publisher. A stated rationale for protecting internet platform providers was to provide true diversity of political discourse. It wasn't to make it easy to run a forum for Ninja 400 motorcycle fans. You want to moderate content,…

I think you both have a different idea of what a platform is. Given your idea of a platform, I think web forums are neither platform nor publishers, so where does that leave them?

To be clear, it's not fair to classify them as publishers. Newspapers and magazines are not mediums of discussions like forums are, they're compilers of articles that people spend days to write and submit for approval.

To use an offline metaphor, forums are like clubs where people meetup in a room and have informal discussions about the topic of the club. Such clubs often have someone acting as a moderator, since if discussions derail from the club topic then the host of the club will become disinterested, as well as potential newcomers who have an interest in the club topic.

In my opinion, if a club must be classified as either a "platform" or a "publisher", I think the word "platform" fits better. However, you consider platforms as being limited to communication mediums like postal mail and phone networks. If that's the case, then I think clubs classify as neither.

Post reply on HN