Revoke Social Media's Legal Shield, but for the Right Reason
bloombergquint.com
Revoke Social Media's Legal Shield, but for the Right Reason
1–9 of 9 posts
Re: Revoke Social Media's Legal Shield, but for the Right Reason
#2How many half-baked takes on "revoke S230" can there possibly be. This must be the hundredth one this week. It's not new, interesting, or even a useful proposition.
Seriously, if at this point you are proposing removing the most common-sense rule of the Internet ("the one legally liable for making a post is the person who posted it, duh") upon which _every website with a comments section relies_, then I cannot assume you are debating in good faith.
Re: Revoke Social Media's Legal Shield, but for the Right Reason
#3> In fact, once the social media companies have to assume legal liability — not just for libel, but for inciting violence and so on — they will quickly change their algorithms to block anything remotely problematic.
If websites are legally liable even for libellous comments made by users, then "anything remotely problematic" will include "any negative claim by anyone about any other person or company". Perhaps the author needs to read:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
Re: Revoke Social Media's Legal Shield, but for the Right Reason
#4I agree with this position. Too many people seem to be looking for a small "patch" to the law to fix the problems we have today, or just more banning and censorship is the solution (which is permitted by Section 230).
I think shielding websites from liability for user comments is just a bad idea. Yes, it would probably mean the end of comments on the internet as we know it. That's the point of the article.
Re: Revoke Social Media's Legal Shield, but for the Right Reason
#5> In fact, once the social media companies have to assume legal liability — not just for libel, but for inciting violence and so on — they will quickly change their algorithms to block anything remotely problematic. If websites are legally liable even for libellous comments made by users, then "anything remotely problematic" will include "any negative claim by anyone about any other person or company". Perhaps the au…
Yeah.. The piece you quoted is underselling it too. It's not "they will change their algorithms to block anything remotely problematic," it's more like "they will literally cease to exist because they'll be stuck in a legal quagmire of court dockets alleging that every post in a debate is libelous."
Imagine that every time someone reported a post on Facebook, or someone flagged a comment here on HN, that it had to go to a court/tribunal/government committee to decide if it should be taken down, if the platform should be punished, etc. It's just a total non-starter to even suggest that S230 be repealed. The entire interactive Internet depends on it.
Re: Revoke Social Media's Legal Shield, but for the Right Reason
#6I agree with this position. Too many people seem to be looking for a small "patch" to the law to fix the problems we have today, or just more banning and censorship is the solution (which is permitted by Section 230). I think shielding websites from liability for user comments is just a bad idea. Yes, it would probably mean the end of comments on the internet as we know it. That's the point of the article.
So you advocate for no user speech, only government / corporate legal speak? A strawman yes, but what is the alternative here? Calling for more court cases seems like very chilling effect, and won't stop bad faith actors.
Re: Revoke Social Media's Legal Shield, but for the Right Reason
#7> In fact, once the social media companies have to assume legal liability — not just for libel, but for inciting violence and so on — they will quickly change their algorithms to block anything remotely problematic. If websites are legally liable even for libellous comments made by users, then "anything remotely problematic" will include "any negative claim by anyone about any other person or company". Perhaps the au…
Yeah.. The piece you quoted is underselling it too. It's not "they will change their algorithms to block anything remotely problematic," it's more like "they will literally cease to exist because they'll be stuck in a legal quagmire of court dockets alleging that every post in a debate is libelous." Imagine that every time someone reported a post on Facebook, or someone flagged a comment here on HN, that it had to go…
Right, so if you wanted to decimate Big Tech companies (or possibly the economic and cultural advantage of the US in general) this is actually a clever policy change with plausible deniability. Also, to use an analogy, it's a hook which is easy to bait in a way that a narcissistic national leader will be keen to swallow it.
Re: Revoke Social Media's Legal Shield, but for the Right Reason
#8I agree with this position. Too many people seem to be looking for a small "patch" to the law to fix the problems we have today, or just more banning and censorship is the solution (which is permitted by Section 230). I think shielding websites from liability for user comments is just a bad idea. Yes, it would probably mean the end of comments on the internet as we know it. That's the point of the article.
[deleted]
Re: Revoke Social Media's Legal Shield, but for the Right Reason
#9> In fact, once the social media companies have to assume legal liability — not just for libel, but for inciting violence and so on — they will quickly change their algorithms to block anything remotely problematic. If websites are legally liable even for libellous comments made by users, then "anything remotely problematic" will include "any negative claim by anyone about any other person or company". Perhaps the au…
Yeah.. The piece you quoted is underselling it too. It's not "they will change their algorithms to block anything remotely problematic," it's more like "they will literally cease to exist because they'll be stuck in a legal quagmire of court dockets alleging that every post in a debate is libelous." Imagine that every time someone reported a post on Facebook, or someone flagged a comment here on HN, that it had to go…
Or cease to exist because the virality of messages has practically been the only real _product_ any of these highly valued social media companies have ever created—as a platform for advertising.
I’m old enough to remember when internet company valuations had everyone wringing their hands asking, what is the mid sky-high valuation based on? Where is the _product_??!