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

Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 116 posts

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#81

Post by carapace »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #31
api wrote: post #15

Let's say S230 was dropped. Would this really damage free speech online, or would it damage platforms and lead to a resurgence of the open web? Edit: also would it genuinely endanger end-to-end encryption or only do so in the context of these platforms? It's a genuine question since I don't understand all the nuances of these laws. If I put up a personal site without S230 protections, am I at risk? What about truly n…

Exactly. It would lead to a smaller Internet. Giant platforms built around scaling past what human moderators can handle would be unviable, but subject-focused communities and human-curated ones would thrive. Bear in mind, the law is not going to actually or reasonably crucify you because someone left a nasty comment on your blog while you were asleep (nobody seriously believes this can happen). The law needs to be a…

I agree. People seem to regard FB and Twitter as bedrock but I wouldn't be sorry to see them forced to spend what it takes to actually moderate themselves or shutdown.

I recently rejoined twitter (I watched a bunch of sci-fi shorts on the youtub and wanted to tell people about them) and it is messed up. It's a hate machine. People are so shitty to one another. And the doxxing mobs are fucking terrifying, flash-mobs of hate, ravening and lawless.

For this we invented the transistor?

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#82

Post by leetcrew »

belltaco wrote: post #73
leetcrew wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

freedom of speech is a bit of a red herring here. liability (and even criminal penalties) for certain speech is not generally considered incompatible with the first amendment. keep in mind that section 230 exempts the platform from the usual liability and penalties that an individual or company would normally face.

>keep in mind that section 230 exempts the platform from the usual liability and penalties that an individual or company would normally face. As it should. If you insult Elon Musk on here, you should sued for it. Why do you think HN should be liable? Section 230 doesnt say you wouldn't be liable.

I think the current state of things is just fine for a niche forum like HN, but not so much for a huge platform like facebook. see my other comments on this article if you're curious about my position.

also, elon would probably be considered a "public figure". it would be pretty hard for him to win any sort of libel suit over a random internet post.

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#83

Post by lliamander »

sub7 wrote: post #78

If Twitter has taught us anything, it's that everyone should not have an equal voice and an equal platform. A person or company's reach or audience should be a function of 1) what they're talking about and 2) what credibility they have re: 1. I'm all for anyone being allowed to say anything but I'm completely against anyone being allowed to amplify anything. Also, the Republicans would do well to introduce legislatio…

> If Twitter has taught us anything, it's that everyone should not have an equal voice and an equal platform. A person or company's reach or audience should be a function of 1) what they're talking about and 2) what credibility they have re: 1.

How do you propose we should establish credibility of sources? Also, how do propose to factor in the originality of what they say?

> Also, the Republicans would do well to introduce legislation expanding data portability and making it much harder for these completely unethical platforms to keep your data locked into their walled gardens. Friends names, birthdays and emails as a csv is basically impossible to export from FB for example.

Agreed.

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#84

Post by carapace »

api wrote: post #15

Let's say S230 was dropped. Would this really damage free speech online, or would it damage platforms and lead to a resurgence of the open web? Edit: also would it genuinely endanger end-to-end encryption or only do so in the context of these platforms? It's a genuine question since I don't understand all the nuances of these laws. If I put up a personal site without S230 protections, am I at risk? What about truly n…

> would it genuinely endanger end-to-end encryption or only do so in the context of these platforms?

I feel like this is the most important question of the whole mess. What you do in the privacy of your own e2ee tunnel is your own business.

How could Chuck sue the service provider for a message sent between Alice and Bob?

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#85

Post by lliamander »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #75
lliamander wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they fact checked his tweet. They're now "fact checking" obvious satire. That's not merely moderation, but applying a false context that changes the meaning of the tweet.

I dunno. If readers can see that it is obviously satire, then Twitter just looks silly and no harm has been done. If readers can't tell though, then Twitter is providing a useful service here.

If readers can't tell, then Twitter should label it "satire" not "manipulated content".

EDIT: just speculation, but by mislabeling the tweet, I wonder if Twitter could be exposing itself to a libel lawsuit.

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#86

Post by carapace »

manfredo wrote: post #71
carapace wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, remove sec. 230 protections and social media becomes Disneyland and the cesspool recedes to the "darknet". (Whether that's a good thing or not I dunno.)

This will not be the result. The scale of content posted on social media makes it impossible to remove content that could result in lawsuits or charges down the road. The only way for social media companies to avoid liability would be to eliminate moderation. Either that or remove comments and user uploaded content outside of a much smaller pool of vetted people - and at that point it's not longer really social media…

> The scale of content posted on social media makes it impossible to remove content that could result in lawsuits or charges down the road.

Impossible or just expensive?

Reddit amortizes moderation over it's user-base, couldn't they share liability too? FB and Twitter could do likewise.

On the other hand, if it really is too expensive to moderate at scale maybe these companies should be broken up?

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#87

Post by lliamander »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #79
lliamander wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There has always been a difference between freedom to say what you want and freedom from consequences. No. Free speech is speech which is (at least largely) free of consequence. Not just free of legal consequences either, but social consequences as well (such as getting fired from your job for having certain political opinions). Free speech =/= first amendment. > The famous adage “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowde…

Most people probably don't push their definition of free speech that far. If I kick someone out of my house because they are being an asshole, that doesn't feel like an infringement on their free speech to me.

I didn't say "absolutely" free of consequence, I said "largely". No one is debating about whether you can kick someone out of your house. The kind of "social consequences" that I (and others) are concerned about are things like:

- being fired from a job

- blacklisted by an industry

- canceled by a payment processor

- being kicked out of a university

Imposing financial consequences for having a difference of opinion is a very insidious way of manipulating public speech. It doesn't actually change people's minds, and is a great way to get preference falsification (like what was seen in the 2016 U.S. presidential election).

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#88

Post by ashtonkem »

sgift wrote: post #66
FpUser wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they are supposedly active in moderating content (I am not talking about taking down illegal stuff here). Moderating content to fit their narrative arguably makes them a publisher with all the consequences. I guess what they are saying (entities that are meddling with 230) is either be totally neutral with the exception of taking down illegal stuff and spam or face the outcome.

> Moderating content to fit their narrative arguably makes them a publisher with all the consequences. The problem being that there is no proof that this happens. Despite all attempts to construct some kind of "one side gets moderated stronger than the other" narrative this stays a conspiracy theory.

The other problem is that moderating content doesn’t make them the publisher. That is literally the point of section 230, giving platforms the ability to moderate without becoming responsible for the content.

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#89

Post by lliamander »

vharuck wrote: post #77
lliamander wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There has always been a difference between freedom to say what you want and freedom from consequences. No. Free speech is speech which is (at least largely) free of consequence. Not just free of legal consequences either, but social consequences as well (such as getting fired from your job for having certain political opinions). Free speech =/= first amendment. > The famous adage “you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowde…

>Free speech is speech which is (at least largely) free of consequence. Only useless speech comes with no consequences. It's pretty much a tautology. I don't see how your definition of "free speech" is useful. In what world would it ever exist?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Unless you can voice an opinion with which others disagree without legal or serious social consequences, you do not have free speech.

Re: Proposals to Amend Section 230 Share a Similar Goal: Damage Online Users’ Speech

#90

Post by CerealFounder »

api wrote: post #25
CerealFounder wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarians are real free enterprise until it affects their lives... But before I get thrashed for hurthing feelings, the real problem is these networks act like pubs and open networks. Paid amplification is almost certainly the problem in that it allows money to act as speech. by allowing it to reach more people that didnt seek it. Historically a wild fringe idea stayed that way because it was hard to convert peopl…

Paid amplification isn't the fundamental problem, but it contributes. The root of all evil on the Internet in the past 10-15 years is algorithmic timelines and algorithmic content curation whose goal function is to increase engagement. What increases engagement? Fear, hate, conflict, and spectacle. The media has understood this for years: "if it bleeds it leads." People have a strong bias to stare at danger, probably…

I like what you wrote here. I think you're right
Post reply on HN