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

71–80 of 195 posts

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

#71

Post by LegitShady »

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.

Hint: this isn't new regulation, this is rolling back a regulation that is defending these publishers pretending to be platforms.

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

#72

Post by arcticbull »

vnchr wrote: post #27
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.

Internet platforms maintain control over their system whereas gun manufacturers give away control to gun buyers. The gun manufacturer ceases to maintain control and cannot be assigned responsibility after the sale of the good.

I don't think it's so cut and dried. For instance, if you sell a defective gun, and that gun kills the shooter instead of the target, you can certainly be assigned responsibility. Liability doesn't end when something is in someone else's hands. Selling something you know is dangerous, than you know can harm, brings with it is own liability -- contaminated lettuce for instance.

There are a number of implied warranties made when a transaction occurs. [1]

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/implied-warranty.asp

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

#73

Post by jhawk28 »

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.

I don't think that is the position. I think they are just tired of a perceived bias against the right by left leaning aggregation organizations compounded with the cancel culture.

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

#74

Post by nothisisamerica »

ooobit2 wrote: post #53
bcrosby95 wrote: post #44

Be careful of what you ask for. Section 230 exists because the courts punished Prodigy because they tried to moderate their forums but did it imperfectly, but didn't punish CompuServe because they let anything go. The idea is to allow imperfect moderation in addition to both zero and perfect moderation. The internet without section 230 isn't a bastion of internet freedom. It's 4chan and 8chan. It's a shithole.

[flagged]

Start your own platform. Have the government run it. Compete using tax dollars.

Here's one system you could use to run your own platform where you make all of the editorial decisions, you pay for all of the moderation, and you pay for the fallout from attempts to manipulate public opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon_(software)

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

#75

Post by watwut »

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.

It is not paradigm shift for GOP. Libertarians are not the only part of GOP.

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

#76

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

tw04 wrote: post #46
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Nothing is ever this simple. Even cursory search would show that this is an ongoing saga linked to LEOs displeasure with encryption. I am not a fan of Trump personally, but no reason to let it cloud your judgment.

It literally is about Trump being angry that Twitter fact checked his outright lies about mail-in voting. There are absolutely other powers that stand to benefit, or are pushing the agenda as well, but to claim it's not a result of Trump's hissy fit is ridiculous. https://deadline.com/2020/05/donald-trump-twitter-social-med... The executive order was signed by exactly one individual who was completely open about why…

I think you are assuming that the order is a cause rather a convenient excuse to pursue a specific agenda. I appreciate the approach, by a person signing it is just a convenient lightning rod. Note that it seems to be working very well.

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

#77

Post by hiram112 »

akersten wrote: post #43
throwaway_USD wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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…

> Sellers of guns and ammunition assumed they were protected from liability by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. On that angle, why are the folks arguing "a few big tech companies have had immunity for too long, they have too much influence," not also arguing "a few gun manufacturers have had immunity for too long and have too much influence?" To me, providing a tool to kill and facing no consequ…

Let me know when the CEO of Glock or Colt comes and takes back the gun I purchased from them due to a Tweet of mine that the mob disliked.

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

#78

Post by throwawaygh »

thoughtstheseus wrote: post #32
throwawaygh wrote: post #28

I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that Section 230 protections should come with some sort of obligation to allow free speech. However, the actual policy proposals for replacing Section 230 are all outright dystopian. Josh Hawley, in particular, is NOT a free speech advocate. His problem with Facebook/Tiwtter is perceived liberal bias, and the alternatives to Section 230 that he suggests are 100% about wrestling e…

Make it all dumb pipes and make users responsible for regulating what they see/hear. Make a market for filtering content, one great filter across a platform is not flexible. Require platforms over a certain size to provide real-time data accessibility across platforms. Facebook and Twitter are monopolies by virtue of market position, anyone can build a platform that is functionally the same. Create competition here.

This sounds like an excellent idea, but I'm worried about architecture/execution/implementation. Generally successful regulations set goals but don't prescribe how those goals should be met. There doesn't seem to be a super clean separation between "what" and "how" here.

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

#79

Post by tw04 »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #76
tw04 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It literally is about Trump being angry that Twitter fact checked his outright lies about mail-in voting. There are absolutely other powers that stand to benefit, or are pushing the agenda as well, but to claim it's not a result of Trump's hissy fit is ridiculous. https://deadline.com/2020/05/donald-trump-twitter-social-med... The executive order was signed by exactly one individual who was completely open about why…

I think you are assuming that the order is a cause rather a convenient excuse to pursue a specific agenda. I appreciate the approach, by a person signing it is just a convenient lightning rod. Note that it seems to be working very well.

A convenient excuse for what? The president doesn't need an excuse to sign an executive order, he needs exactly 0 permission from anyone to do it. This isn't some new law drafted by congress that needs political cover to move through the process, it's an executive order.

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

#80

Post by hiram112 »

snuxoll wrote: post #67

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.

Not even close to open and shut.

You realize that an editorial posted on the NYTimes or Fox News site can get them sued for libel or defamation, right? This does, in fact, happen all the time. Read about several of the left leaning cable networks and their lawsuit with the 'Covington Kids'. They are a publisher, and are responsible for their content.

Google, Twitter, Reddit, etc. acted like platforms for many years, same as the telecoms, and nobody ever complained. Look at how much influence and cash they have. What could possibly cause them to risk this gold mine?

Donald Trump became president, and the liberal companies and employees in Silicon Valley / West Coast lost their nerve and resorted to censorship, decided to use their 'platforms' as their own private political tools.

Oops...

Now they can enjoy the same restrictions that other publishers have always had to deal with. Hopefully their shareholders realize the source of the issue, and boot the activist executives and employees, as it's now going to cost them a lot of money, all of which they brought on themselves.

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-settles-l...

Post reply on HN