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

81–90 of 195 posts

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

#81

Post by GoblinSlayer »

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.

Phone calls are private communication. Isn't there's a law that prevents screening private communications?

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

#82

Post by throwawaygh »

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.

> This is a open and shut first amendment case.

Yes, it is, but the outcome would be the opposite of what you expect.

constitutionally, private corporations can't be censored or compelled to speak when the speech is 1A protected speech.

but not all speech receives 1A protections, and Section 230 is about the type of speech that isn't protected by 1A. E.g., without 230, corporations could be sued for users' libel or held criminally liable for helping distribute lots of different types of speech (e.g., making terroristic threats, distributing child porn, facilitating illegal acts, etc.).

So, a case that hinges on 230 protections would be open-and-shut if 230 were repealed. Just with the opposite outcome of the one you're expecting.

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

#84

Post by 0134340 »

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.

You may not legally be held liable though in many cases you can. It's a common trope within law and I'd guess derived from common sense that if you host illegal content then you are therefore bound to scrutiny for potentially enabling it. So by extension, if you care about being a free person, you are responsible for it. Anything illegal in my home and I'm bound to scrutiny and law. Why should big co's get a free pass? To me, I couldn't care less either way but consistency in law would be just lovely.

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

#85

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

tw04 wrote: post #79
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think I am going to stop here. I am not sure you are open to a discussion.

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

#86

Post by throwawaygh »

hiram112 wrote: post #80
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,…

> as it's now going to cost them a lot of money

As one of those shareholders, from a purely profit-motive, I'm not so sure that replacing 230 with something more onerous would be a net negative.

Moats are expensive, but also valuable.

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

#87

Post by stronglikedan »

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.

> Make it all dumb pipes and make users responsible for regulating what they see/hear.

Just like the good old days, until somebody "thought of the children".

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

#88

Post by GoblinSlayer »

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.

A small tweak of moderation policy shouldn't destroy them.

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

#89

Post by vangelis »

hiram112 wrote: post #80
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,…

Should I be able to sue YC when Hackernews commenters say something objectionable? That Paul G money sounds nice.

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

#90

Post by GoblinSlayer »

throwawaygh wrote: post #78
thoughtstheseus wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Implementations exist: Microsoft provides parental control filters, OpenDNS has community-driven content classification.
Post reply on HN