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

61–70 of 195 posts

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

#61

Post by vajrabum »

akersten wrote: post #40
0134340 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a common exception in law for utilities. The power company is not responsible for whatever nefarious activity is enabled by supplying power. If you have an illegal marijuana grow operation the power company doesn't get prosecuted nor are they responsible in law for proactively identifying those growers. ISP and service providers don't want to be utilities because that requires that they provide a level playing field to their customers, but their business has all the characteristics of a utility and their customers would pretty much all prefer that over the current situation.

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

#62

Post by eeZah7Ux »

belltaco wrote: post #35
arkades wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a strawman.

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

#63

Post by SauciestGNU »

pavlov wrote: post #33
adventured wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And seemingly all because these platforms deign to accurately represent how much opposition there is to the Republican agenda.

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

#64

Post by sdwedq »

I agree. I used to believe in absolute freedom of speech on the web. But then people start sending goatsx or whatever as joke in emails. I learned to avoid opening any links form certain friends.

MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter was nice clean space to hangout for a while. Then horrible and traumatic pictures and videos start showing up in my feed. I know the world is horrible place but I don't need constant reminder about it. I unfollowed as many people as I can.

Now as a parent, I cannot constantly monitor these supposedly safe sites. I have seen disgusting or violent videos on YouTube for Kids, Amazon Videos aimed at kids, and even some kids shows on Netflix.

These platform should be responsible for the content they host, no matter who uploaded. That would be one way to clean up flith.

That's why I will pay for cable TV again and let someone moderate content for me.

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

#65

Post by LegitShady »

belltaco wrote: post #35
arkades wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is precisely the issue. Phone companies don't maintain control of their network to filter what calls and texts are allowed, don't maintain political rules on their network, etc. They are neutral carriers.

Meanwhile google etc are pretending they are neutral carriers while actively filtering and choosing what is shown, now politically, showing they not only have the capability to control their platform but put it in practice.

If they cannot allow others free speech they should not get special protection that prevents their liability.

If a phone company started filtering political discussion I would absolutely think them responsible now for everything on their network. Your example is perfect to show how different both groups are in capability and practice.

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

#66

Post by LegitShady »

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…

lawsuits and settlement are not legal liability, they are just sometimes cheaper and better PR to settle.

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

#67

Post by snuxoll »

I don’t see this passing constitutional muster. You have a right to free speech as do corporations - you can be ejected from a privately owned building for saying things the owner doesn’t agree with, the same applies to online platforms.

This is a open and shut first amendment case.

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

#68

Post by Vespasian »

seemslegit wrote: post #41
Communitivity wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not, and never claimed I did. I said it looks good on paper. A number of sources have said it is startup friendly. If the EU's laws are so burdensome, why is there a thriving startup ecosystem in the EU? I have read about EU's stances on hate speech, defamation, and libel (though I wouldn't call that hobby reading research), and I am fine with their stances. I think we could use more hate speech protection, wh…

> If the EU's laws are so burdensome, why is there a thriving startup ecosystem in the EU? I have read about EU's stances on hate speech, defamation, and libel (though I wouldn't call that hobby reading research), and I am fine with their stances. There is nothing particularly thriving about it. There are just a lot of them because it costs almost nothing to incorporate a company and 'startup' sounds cooler than a 's…

> Can you name many EU startups that IPOd or got acquired for an impressive amount during the last decade or were even considered "unicorns" at any point by anyone other than themselves ?

In Addition to what sobani said:

HelloFresh, Transferwise, N26, Revolut, Telegram (if you stretch the meaning of Europe), Klarna, Auto1 Group to name a few

Of course not all of them operate globally but that isn't a requirement

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

#69

Post by AzzieElbab »

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.

It is more of a pre-elections warning shot. I expect a lot of negativity from both sides in November. So politicians cant allow platforms interfere.

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

#70

Post by seemslegit »

sobani wrote: post #60
seemslegit wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the EU's laws are so burdensome, why is there a thriving startup ecosystem in the EU? I have read about EU's stances on hate speech, defamation, and libel (though I wouldn't call that hobby reading research), and I am fine with their stances. There is nothing particularly thriving about it. There are just a lot of them because it costs almost nothing to incorporate a company and 'startup' sounds cooler than a 's…

> Can you name many EU startups that IPOd or got acquired for an impressive amount during the last decade or were even considered "unicorns" at any point by anyone other than themselves? You mean besides companies like Spotify, Rovio (Angry Birds) or Mojang (Minecraft)?

That's really not that much to show for an economic superpower of almost half a billion people and none of these companies rely on the protections offered by Section 230. I mean maybe if you got creative enough in minecraft you could trigger some but it's owned by Microsoft now so you'll have to deal with their censorship first.
Post reply on HN