Section 230 is Good, Actually(eff.org)
eff.org
Section 230 is Good, Actually
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/section-230-good-actually
82 comments
Agreed. I’m a lawyer who practices in this area a bit. My female clients are subject to incredibly grotesque harassment online on these various platforms. The “report” functions rarely work and when they do, it’s a very slow process. The sites are so negligent that they are complicit at this point.
I’ll defend Section 230 once the sites start holding up their end of the bargain and rigorously protect. And if those sites start editorializing, then anything should be fair game.
I’ll defend Section 230 once the sites start holding up their end of the bargain and rigorously protect. And if those sites start editorializing, then anything should be fair game.
Your Client could stop visiting those sites, cuz they would disappear anyway if this law was repelled.
Do you want your comments to be inaccessible when your own computer is down? Do you want to be the only repository of all pieces of information posted online, forever?
If not, then you want other people to be able to host these content for you. And they won't want to be liable for what you are saying.
If not, then you want other people to be able to host these content for you. And they won't want to be liable for what you are saying.
I agree with the parent.
The post says that online services are different from print services, but this law does not specify how. Those could be added on.
Is there a line an online service can cross that makes it a publisher?
Now that we are into a fully centralized world, a twitter (maybe unintentionally) has become one of the main highways in the information resources being transported.
The question of whether Twitter, FB are private companies are next to the point.
There can always be a size restriction? no. of users etc?
Also how a twitter or a facebook might fare without Section 230 needs some thought? Maybe it is good for the internet
The post says that online services are different from print services, but this law does not specify how. Those could be added on.
Is there a line an online service can cross that makes it a publisher?
Now that we are into a fully centralized world, a twitter (maybe unintentionally) has become one of the main highways in the information resources being transported.
The question of whether Twitter, FB are private companies are next to the point.
There can always be a size restriction? no. of users etc?
Also how a twitter or a facebook might fare without Section 230 needs some thought? Maybe it is good for the internet
If Facebook and Twitter vanished, the world would be immeasurably better.
It would. But, I have less faith in humanity. I feel that if they disappeared we'd create and congregate on something equivalent, and possibly even worse.
> Eliminating 230 doesn’t eliminate free speech, it eliminates centralized socialization. This is a good thing for the future of the internet, and for the future of the United States.
Yeah, it seems to me that socialization just doesn't scale Internet-style. There's no intrinsic need for massive platforms like Twitter and Facebook. They're kind of just "skins" over the underlying inter-networked machines anyway, not fundamental elements of "the online experience". They just happened. Like an oil spill.
TFA pretty much admits that the problem is "impossible":
> Compare this with YouTube, whose users upload at least 400 hours of video [pdf] every minute, an impossible volume to meaningfully vet in advance of publishing online.
Maybe social stuff like this doesn't scale. I've said it before: if this were a hardware or software problem we (tech/engineer types) would have realized already that we're trying to do the impossible. We set up the Gordian NP Hard knot and then are stunned when it proves intractable.
> But an additional purpose of Section 230 was to eliminate any distinction between those who actively select, curate, and edit the speech before distributing it and those who are merely passive conduits for it.
I think that distinction is very important and should be recognized in law. At the very least, services should be required to label their content "We Vetted This" vs. "We're Just a Conduit for This".
Yeah, it seems to me that socialization just doesn't scale Internet-style. There's no intrinsic need for massive platforms like Twitter and Facebook. They're kind of just "skins" over the underlying inter-networked machines anyway, not fundamental elements of "the online experience". They just happened. Like an oil spill.
TFA pretty much admits that the problem is "impossible":
> Compare this with YouTube, whose users upload at least 400 hours of video [pdf] every minute, an impossible volume to meaningfully vet in advance of publishing online.
Maybe social stuff like this doesn't scale. I've said it before: if this were a hardware or software problem we (tech/engineer types) would have realized already that we're trying to do the impossible. We set up the Gordian NP Hard knot and then are stunned when it proves intractable.
> But an additional purpose of Section 230 was to eliminate any distinction between those who actively select, curate, and edit the speech before distributing it and those who are merely passive conduits for it.
I think that distinction is very important and should be recognized in law. At the very least, services should be required to label their content "We Vetted This" vs. "We're Just a Conduit for This".
> At the very least, services should be required to label their content "We Vetted This" vs. "We're Just a Conduit for This".
And if they label their content "We Vetted This" or "This statement is disputed" or any other editorialized comment, then they should be open to liable law suits.
And if they label their content "We Vetted This" or "This statement is disputed" or any other editorialized comment, then they should be open to liable law suits.
Pretty much.
To strain the metaphor: if you have a pipe (conduit) it works if what you put in at one end comes out the other; if you have a filter and it passes what it's supposed to filter out, then it's a broken filter, eh?
To strain the metaphor: if you have a pipe (conduit) it works if what you put in at one end comes out the other; if you have a filter and it passes what it's supposed to filter out, then it's a broken filter, eh?
Your intuition on this point is correct. Section 230 is functionally mostly about making users liable for digital copyright infringement rather than platforms. It is not really about speech. The conflation of the First Amendment with copyright law is a common corporate sleight of hand, but it should be pushed back on vigorously.
The issue with the editorializing (which has become absurdly aggressive on the part of the 230 platforms) is that it weakens the defense that these corporations have enjoyed in shunting the liability onto their users. Within hours, all the platforms would be litigated into oblivion for the actions of the users in the absence of 230 protections.
The EFF are paid-for apologists for (some) corporations and gadflies against (other) corporations.
>And Section 230 doesn’t only allow sites that host speech, including controversial views, to exist. It allows them to exist without putting their thumbs on the scale by censoring controversial or potentially problematic content. And because what is considered controversial is often shifting, and context- and viewpoint- dependent, it’s important that these views are able to be shared. “Defund the police” may be considered controversial speech today, but that doesn’t mean it should be censored. “Drain the Swamp,” “Black Lives Matter,” or even “All Lives Matter” may all be controversial views, but censoring them would not be beneficial.
This verbal sleight of hand of conflating speech protections with this liability shield enjoyed by these multi-trillion dollar corporations is most clearly used by the EFF in their paid-for chatter about how this "could" be used to silence speech. No, it couldn't be. The proposed amendments to 230 that have gained the most traction extend the liability shield to services with fewer numbers of users. That means that the proposed amendments would not do what the EFF says that it would do, which would be to silence small websites. Unless the speech infringes copyright or breaks some other statute such as those against libel/defamation/threats of violence, the removal of the 230 liability shield would have no impact. If you are an independent web host, you are already liable for your speech and if you pay for a conventional hosting provider, they will be protected by 230 no matter what.
https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/En...
The proposed Hawley amendment would only impact companies that meet at least one of these three criteria:
>‘‘(A) had more than 30,000,000 active monthly users in the United States; (B) had more than 300,000,000 active monthly users worldwide; or ‘(C) had more than $500,000,000 in global annual revenue
230 is about shifting liability to users and protecting mega-corporations. The EFF is being disingenuous and deceptive in this press release made on behalf of its donors. The part of this release that is accurate is that 230 is not "at odds" with the First Amendment. While there are cultural concerns about whether or not the tech company actions are in line with the spirit of open debate, it is not really related to the First Amendment.
The issue is that by actively moderating so much of the platform content and shaping what discussions are allowed, the companies are severely weakening their argument that they are not legally liable for the content that users publish outside of the bare requirements of the DMCA and the case law concerning the types of facilities they must have to handle copyright disputes. Modifying 230 is a recognition that when these platforms take an active hand in moderating content, modifying content, and publishing content, they should be held to the traditional liabilities of publishing content -- and those liabilities tend to be related to copyright rather than to speech per se.
The EFF and its donors want to portray the issue as concerning speech rather than liability for what would overwhelmingly turn out to be copyright infringement. These are not the same things. If the companies want to maintain their immunities related to distributing content like child porn and illegally copied files, they must also avoid heavy handed moderation if they are operating at the scale described in the most popular proposed amendments so far. If they are not operating at the scale in the proposed amendments, literally nothing changes for them and they are still protected by the liability shield.
The 230 beneficiaries under scrutiny want to continue shifting liability to their users while also gaining greater editorial control over what those users post and how that content is presented to other users. They want to continue to reap enormous profits with this legal privilege while ensuring that their users remain liable for content. You, the little guy, can be sued, whereas they, the big guy, cannot be sued for crimes committed using their network.
Again, 230 is not about speech: this fundamental conflation is a beloved legal trick of corporate America, whether it is being used to extend the power of copyright law beyond reasonable historic bounds or to otherwise exploit the vagaries and loopholes in copyright law to make more money.
The issue with the editorializing (which has become absurdly aggressive on the part of the 230 platforms) is that it weakens the defense that these corporations have enjoyed in shunting the liability onto their users. Within hours, all the platforms would be litigated into oblivion for the actions of the users in the absence of 230 protections.
The EFF are paid-for apologists for (some) corporations and gadflies against (other) corporations.
>And Section 230 doesn’t only allow sites that host speech, including controversial views, to exist. It allows them to exist without putting their thumbs on the scale by censoring controversial or potentially problematic content. And because what is considered controversial is often shifting, and context- and viewpoint- dependent, it’s important that these views are able to be shared. “Defund the police” may be considered controversial speech today, but that doesn’t mean it should be censored. “Drain the Swamp,” “Black Lives Matter,” or even “All Lives Matter” may all be controversial views, but censoring them would not be beneficial.
This verbal sleight of hand of conflating speech protections with this liability shield enjoyed by these multi-trillion dollar corporations is most clearly used by the EFF in their paid-for chatter about how this "could" be used to silence speech. No, it couldn't be. The proposed amendments to 230 that have gained the most traction extend the liability shield to services with fewer numbers of users. That means that the proposed amendments would not do what the EFF says that it would do, which would be to silence small websites. Unless the speech infringes copyright or breaks some other statute such as those against libel/defamation/threats of violence, the removal of the 230 liability shield would have no impact. If you are an independent web host, you are already liable for your speech and if you pay for a conventional hosting provider, they will be protected by 230 no matter what.
https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/En...
The proposed Hawley amendment would only impact companies that meet at least one of these three criteria:
>‘‘(A) had more than 30,000,000 active monthly users in the United States; (B) had more than 300,000,000 active monthly users worldwide; or ‘(C) had more than $500,000,000 in global annual revenue
230 is about shifting liability to users and protecting mega-corporations. The EFF is being disingenuous and deceptive in this press release made on behalf of its donors. The part of this release that is accurate is that 230 is not "at odds" with the First Amendment. While there are cultural concerns about whether or not the tech company actions are in line with the spirit of open debate, it is not really related to the First Amendment.
The issue is that by actively moderating so much of the platform content and shaping what discussions are allowed, the companies are severely weakening their argument that they are not legally liable for the content that users publish outside of the bare requirements of the DMCA and the case law concerning the types of facilities they must have to handle copyright disputes. Modifying 230 is a recognition that when these platforms take an active hand in moderating content, modifying content, and publishing content, they should be held to the traditional liabilities of publishing content -- and those liabilities tend to be related to copyright rather than to speech per se.
The EFF and its donors want to portray the issue as concerning speech rather than liability for what would overwhelmingly turn out to be copyright infringement. These are not the same things. If the companies want to maintain their immunities related to distributing content like child porn and illegally copied files, they must also avoid heavy handed moderation if they are operating at the scale described in the most popular proposed amendments so far. If they are not operating at the scale in the proposed amendments, literally nothing changes for them and they are still protected by the liability shield.
The 230 beneficiaries under scrutiny want to continue shifting liability to their users while also gaining greater editorial control over what those users post and how that content is presented to other users. They want to continue to reap enormous profits with this legal privilege while ensuring that their users remain liable for content. You, the little guy, can be sued, whereas they, the big guy, cannot be sued for crimes committed using their network.
Again, 230 is not about speech: this fundamental conflation is a beloved legal trick of corporate America, whether it is being used to extend the power of copyright law beyond reasonable historic bounds or to otherwise exploit the vagaries and loopholes in copyright law to make more money.
Section 230 has nothing to do with copyright infringement, that's specifically excluded and instead falls under the DMCA.
> Eliminating 230 doesn’t eliminate free speech, it eliminates centralized socialization.
How is it any less eliminative for decentralized services? If you have a private moderated forum (e.g. HN), or even a small one with only 5000 users, that's still more than enough to attract spam and trolls. So the small forum operator deletes the spam and the trolling.
If that makes them responsible for everything everybody says on that forum, first of all, they're screwed. People will post some liability-inducing material while the forum operator is on vacation and they'll get thrown in jail for hosting it. Small forum operators don't have the resources or the risk tolerance to put up with that, so they'll fold, and leave the huge centralized ones to pick up their user base.
Worse, to avoid the liability the ones that remain will over-censor. We already see this with the DMCA. Even transparently fraudulent takedowns are typically executed anyway because it's not worth the risk if you're wrong or the resources of proving you're right. Web forums aren't courts; they aren't a valid entity to be making complex lawful speech determinations in an accurate way, and they won't, so instead they'll do something despicable.
But you also can't use forums that don't moderate at all, because they're immediately overrun with spam and trolls.
The actual problem with these centralized entities is not that they do moderation. It's that they're centralized. Break them up.
How is it any less eliminative for decentralized services? If you have a private moderated forum (e.g. HN), or even a small one with only 5000 users, that's still more than enough to attract spam and trolls. So the small forum operator deletes the spam and the trolling.
If that makes them responsible for everything everybody says on that forum, first of all, they're screwed. People will post some liability-inducing material while the forum operator is on vacation and they'll get thrown in jail for hosting it. Small forum operators don't have the resources or the risk tolerance to put up with that, so they'll fold, and leave the huge centralized ones to pick up their user base.
Worse, to avoid the liability the ones that remain will over-censor. We already see this with the DMCA. Even transparently fraudulent takedowns are typically executed anyway because it's not worth the risk if you're wrong or the resources of proving you're right. Web forums aren't courts; they aren't a valid entity to be making complex lawful speech determinations in an accurate way, and they won't, so instead they'll do something despicable.
But you also can't use forums that don't moderate at all, because they're immediately overrun with spam and trolls.
The actual problem with these centralized entities is not that they do moderation. It's that they're centralized. Break them up.
> How is it any less eliminative for decentralized services?
Not speaking for the parent here but I think you called out a distinction; private. There's a difference between running a private, not for profit, Mastadon node where anyone who signs up presumably knows what the forum is about versus Twitter who pitched their company to investors as merely a platform for people to tweet.
Nobody is upset with Twitter moderating content that violates existing Federal Law, but they were never meant to be a moderating like a Mastadon node on the private side or even like a sub reddit on the public side. Again, looking at Reddit, most don't have an issue with moderated content on the sub reddit, the issue is when Reddit removes entire sub reddits because THEY don't agree with the content.
BTW, I think Justice Thomas' recent remarks have made Twitter and Facebook take note because he hinted that the misrepresentation to investors was the attack vector, not the 1st Amendment.
Not speaking for the parent here but I think you called out a distinction; private. There's a difference between running a private, not for profit, Mastadon node where anyone who signs up presumably knows what the forum is about versus Twitter who pitched their company to investors as merely a platform for people to tweet.
Nobody is upset with Twitter moderating content that violates existing Federal Law, but they were never meant to be a moderating like a Mastadon node on the private side or even like a sub reddit on the public side. Again, looking at Reddit, most don't have an issue with moderated content on the sub reddit, the issue is when Reddit removes entire sub reddits because THEY don't agree with the content.
BTW, I think Justice Thomas' recent remarks have made Twitter and Facebook take note because he hinted that the misrepresentation to investors was the attack vector, not the 1st Amendment.
> Not speaking for the parent here but I think you called out a distinction; private.
In this context "private" just means privately operated. A Mastadon node is still publicly available.
But I can kind of see the distinction you're getting at, and it's especially clear with Reddit. If you have a sub which is moderated by the users, there is no longer any call for the corporation to do any moderation whatsoever, because it's already being handled in a decentralized fashion (each sub has its own independent moderators). You don't need the corporation itself to do any moderation at all, and so anything they do there is unnecessary and unwelcome.
The question is how to draw that line. You essentially want decentralized moderation even when there is centralized hosting. How does that look when you apply it to e.g. Facebook?
In this context "private" just means privately operated. A Mastadon node is still publicly available.
But I can kind of see the distinction you're getting at, and it's especially clear with Reddit. If you have a sub which is moderated by the users, there is no longer any call for the corporation to do any moderation whatsoever, because it's already being handled in a decentralized fashion (each sub has its own independent moderators). You don't need the corporation itself to do any moderation at all, and so anything they do there is unnecessary and unwelcome.
The question is how to draw that line. You essentially want decentralized moderation even when there is centralized hosting. How does that look when you apply it to e.g. Facebook?
> How is it any less eliminative for decentralized services? If you have a private moderated forum (e.g. HN), or even a small one with only 5000 users, that's still more than enough to attract spam and trolls. So the small forum operator deletes the spam and the trolling.
That’s not decentralized. That’s just small. With decentralized services there is no entity to sue. It would be like trying to sue a torrent. You can’t.
Imagine Chase Bank vs Bitcoin. If you want to se Chase Bank, you can. If you want to sue Bitcoin you go pound sand.
That’s not decentralized. That’s just small. With decentralized services there is no entity to sue. It would be like trying to sue a torrent. You can’t.
Imagine Chase Bank vs Bitcoin. If you want to se Chase Bank, you can. If you want to sue Bitcoin you go pound sand.
There is always an entity to sue, because legal and organized business activity is taxed and requires legal entities.
If you hide your commercial activity from taxation, you will be dealing with law enforcement sooner or later, depending on scale.
For example, I can sue all companies that make operation of Bitcoin possible, including exchanges, miners, individual and organized Bitcoin users.
So, to repeat: Technical implementation details are irrelevant because legal business happens between legal entities.
If you hide your commercial activity from taxation, you will be dealing with law enforcement sooner or later, depending on scale.
For example, I can sue all companies that make operation of Bitcoin possible, including exchanges, miners, individual and organized Bitcoin users.
So, to repeat: Technical implementation details are irrelevant because legal business happens between legal entities.
What is the analogy supposed to be for the moderators then? You have a decentralized service, hosted on IPFS or something. You can't sue the service, but that was never the issue. Nobody is calling for liability on AWS for hosting a forum moderated by somebody else. It's the moderators that Section 230 is protecting. And even if you use decentralized hosting, to have moderation the moderators still have to exist, do they not?
It’s baffling to me. In the article they provide the entire Section 230 text, and it does not mention curated content. So, how is it justified that curating content is protected by Section 230? Is curating users content protected be First Amendment somehow?
There is no bright line between passively hosting content (in which case your site will become a magnet for spam and trolls) and "curating" content. Repealing Section 230 means making a pro-trump discussion forum would open you up to liability: you cannot ban or moderate anti-trump posters because that's "curation".
The law was deliberately broad and that's a good thing for free speech.
The law was deliberately broad and that's a good thing for free speech.
> This law was intended to allow sites to delete abusive or illegal content without being sued.
That's not true at all. The law was created because lots of sites big and small were being dragged into lawsuits over comments or posts made by their users. The nuisance cost alone was having a chilling effect and courts were divided about liability.
The law is very straightforward and obviously good: liability lies with the person making the statement, not with the person hosting the platform.
Repealing it would mean the cost of hosting any user-provided content would be far too high to be worth doing. Even something as simple as a product review would subject the site (and their hosting provider) to liability.
That's not true at all. The law was created because lots of sites big and small were being dragged into lawsuits over comments or posts made by their users. The nuisance cost alone was having a chilling effect and courts were divided about liability.
The law is very straightforward and obviously good: liability lies with the person making the statement, not with the person hosting the platform.
Repealing it would mean the cost of hosting any user-provided content would be far too high to be worth doing. Even something as simple as a product review would subject the site (and their hosting provider) to liability.
230 protects providers of all sizes, from the largest centralized service to a random guy hosting a dorm messsge board.
Disallowing curation is the same as dropping 230 altogether. A provider could not organize content.
If you want to punish/curb Twitter, Facebook or whoever, then do that.
Don’t nuke the entire internet.
Disallowing curation is the same as dropping 230 altogether. A provider could not organize content.
If you want to punish/curb Twitter, Facebook or whoever, then do that.
Don’t nuke the entire internet.
It’s not nuking the internet. It’s just nuking this horrendous abomination that we’ve created. Just because the internet today exists a certain way does not mean it has to stay that way forever.
We can make decentralized financial transactions. We, too, can make decentralized internet a thing. When 230 was created we didn’t have these technologies or ability to do this type of thing. In late 2020, we do.
We can make decentralized financial transactions. We, too, can make decentralized internet a thing. When 230 was created we didn’t have these technologies or ability to do this type of thing. In late 2020, we do.
USA is not the only country in the world!
Do you think that 230 somehow magically blocks decentralized internet all across Europe?
230 has nothing to do with global decentralized internet.
Do you think that 230 somehow magically blocks decentralized internet all across Europe?
230 has nothing to do with global decentralized internet.
The problem with Section 230 is that nasty social media companies can use algorithms to curate the content the user sees (often without their knowledge and against their choice) in order to increase engagement & profit off it (including from content that is illegal or promotes illegal activities) but then use Section 230 as an excuse to get away with zero liability.
Maybe S230 should be amended so that once you start curating the information and/or profiting off it, you become a publisher and lose S230 protection?
Maybe S230 should be amended so that once you start curating the information and/or profiting off it, you become a publisher and lose S230 protection?
So if I want to run a chess forum, and I remove non-chess posts, I should lose S230 protection?
Seems like it starts to get weird if your forum gets millions of chess posts each day, and you pick the posts like "this global conspiracy is why the deep state is trying to ban chess," "how i saved my life by defeating a axe-murdering grandmaster (he is coming for your children too!)," "the 100 sexiest chess players," for the first page of your forum because those stories drive engagement and get you more clicks, and banish the other forum posts to page 103173.
I am curious, how would that be defined a law? Daily users? Unique visitors?
Do you think in that case the government deserves to know much visitors your website has?
Also wasn't the idea of Section 230 to be more for the internet companies? Would repealing mean that the internet provider can be sued for what you do? Wouldn't that be the end result?
For me Section 230 is the cornerstone of the web, and I'd be very against its repeal unless you can show me that the web after that is better/safer for me and for my parents. I am all up for some clarifications as long as they do not limit my right to have a website that won't be sued out of the world for something that someone else does.
And about FB, Twitter, Google, Apple deal with them with a proper tool -- antitrust. Noone will ever explain to me why FB was allowed to buy Whatsapp and Instagram.
Do you think in that case the government deserves to know much visitors your website has?
Also wasn't the idea of Section 230 to be more for the internet companies? Would repealing mean that the internet provider can be sued for what you do? Wouldn't that be the end result?
For me Section 230 is the cornerstone of the web, and I'd be very against its repeal unless you can show me that the web after that is better/safer for me and for my parents. I am all up for some clarifications as long as they do not limit my right to have a website that won't be sued out of the world for something that someone else does.
And about FB, Twitter, Google, Apple deal with them with a proper tool -- antitrust. Noone will ever explain to me why FB was allowed to buy Whatsapp and Instagram.
I don't know the answers to any of your questions.
Not a great example. The forum's purpose is so narrow and well defined that most would not care about the moderation, even if it were for profit.
Add a minimum user number. Say 100k or an arbitrary threshold of substantive complaints. Either you'll be able to afford the traumatized drones in chairs, need to fundraise or get outside help. Fine solution in my book.
What you're really suggesting is that moderated forums with more than 100k users and controlled by a single entity should be de facto prohibited. But then it really has very little to do with Section 230 and you might as well just call it what it is -- antitrust.
No, that's your assumption.
A company should deal with the problems they create.
They could reduce their user base, get crushed by lawsuits and regulations resulting from their reckless endangerment, gross negligence, incompetence, and/or unfettered greed. There's Also the American option of buying politicians and legislation but that's a short sighted and ethically bankrupt decision.
A company should deal with the problems they create.
They could reduce their user base, get crushed by lawsuits and regulations resulting from their reckless endangerment, gross negligence, incompetence, and/or unfettered greed. There's Also the American option of buying politicians and legislation but that's a short sighted and ethically bankrupt decision.
This is not a problem with S 230 in my opinion. All these calls to order tech giants to promote specific views (even though I tend to agree with most) are extremely dangerous. I don't remember who was pointing that this all basically forced Google to have a "state department" and a foreign policy. Same with Facebook.
Personally I am of the radical opinion that the source of all this evil is advertisement. I'd simply forbid it. Advertisement is the reason why social media try to increase engagement. It uses advanced manipulation techniques and recent psychological research.
The net would cost people 2 more dollars per month but would be a much saner place without advertisement.
Personally I am of the radical opinion that the source of all this evil is advertisement. I'd simply forbid it. Advertisement is the reason why social media try to increase engagement. It uses advanced manipulation techniques and recent psychological research.
The net would cost people 2 more dollars per month but would be a much saner place without advertisement.
Book publishers and magazines aren’t held to a very serious standard these days.
This isn’t the UK; free speech in the US is number 1.
It’s far more fundamental than any legislation will fix. America is built on aristocratic protectionism like every other nation. Things like the Constitution allowing for copyright protection for a limited time is made effectively forever given the perspective of an average human life span.
It will always end up being gamed.
Personally, I’m tuning out more from consumerism and “the tech industry”. Even before covid I’d grown sick of what became circular debates over big O and comp sci 101 in tech, and routine office life.
I’m learning musical instruments and writing creatively. Ditched my TV. Things like 230 are useful for big tech Corp. Not me. Let them defend it. I’m not interested in performing unpaid political lobbying for them.
This isn’t the UK; free speech in the US is number 1.
It’s far more fundamental than any legislation will fix. America is built on aristocratic protectionism like every other nation. Things like the Constitution allowing for copyright protection for a limited time is made effectively forever given the perspective of an average human life span.
It will always end up being gamed.
Personally, I’m tuning out more from consumerism and “the tech industry”. Even before covid I’d grown sick of what became circular debates over big O and comp sci 101 in tech, and routine office life.
I’m learning musical instruments and writing creatively. Ditched my TV. Things like 230 are useful for big tech Corp. Not me. Let them defend it. I’m not interested in performing unpaid political lobbying for them.
> Things like 230 are useful for big tech Corp.
Actually that part of the law protects comment sections in personal blogs: you aren't liable for any comments left on your posts and spam fighting or highlighting etc (or not) of posts doesn't magically transform them into statements of yours.
Spammers have reduced the value of comments on blog posts but they are still important.
Actually that part of the law protects comment sections in personal blogs: you aren't liable for any comments left on your posts and spam fighting or highlighting etc (or not) of posts doesn't magically transform them into statements of yours.
Spammers have reduced the value of comments on blog posts but they are still important.
> “Things like 230 are useful for big tech Corp. Not me.”
You’re writing this on a site that’s protected by Section 230.
It’s useful for everyone, from the smallest blog to FB, that lets user-generated content through without premoderation. Repealing this law would mean a web with a lot more moderation, not less.
You’re writing this on a site that’s protected by Section 230.
It’s useful for everyone, from the smallest blog to FB, that lets user-generated content through without premoderation. Repealing this law would mean a web with a lot more moderation, not less.
You're a publisher as soon as you put an infrastructure for users to put stuff on the net. Curating or not doesn't matter.
Disclosure: personal opinion, ianal.
Disclosure: personal opinion, ianal.
In this case would you consider the telephone company a publisher too?
No. I can't publish stuff on their website. They "sell" me the use of the "pipes", not what i do with it.
In one sense yes, but not the one that matters here.
As i said, ianal and it's my own personal opinion. Others here have better expressed my views on the subject. Disruption is not always a good thing. Especially when it has large societal impacts.
If you opinion is about one of the technical meanings of the word publish outside of the reading of the law then your opinion the law.
So yes you're right, but it's not relevant to section 230 at all.
So yes you're right, but it's not relevant to section 230 at all.
There has to be a third way.
Online harassment is a huge problem for pretty much everyone, and it's only going to get worse. Companies have limited financial incentive to deal with it robustly.
The other side of it is spreading false information - why are companies not liable for lies spread widely on their platform? And it they were, would it make for better tools and policies?
Online harassment is a huge problem for pretty much everyone, and it's only going to get worse. Companies have limited financial incentive to deal with it robustly.
The other side of it is spreading false information - why are companies not liable for lies spread widely on their platform? And it they were, would it make for better tools and policies?
You can't define lies and misinformation. If
every community only allowed what they think is true you get Echo chambers, which are already prevalent for said reasons.
Someone's misinformation os another's hard truth. A Flat Earther considers any evidence of a round earth to be false.
Someone's misinformation os another's hard truth. A Flat Earther considers any evidence of a round earth to be false.
It is good, but also it can be, and is being, heavily abused. It is too much power to already mega-powerful corporations.
The exact same could be said about Freedom of Speech itself. Or any other fundamental freedom/privilege for that matter. Potential for abuse is grounds for mitigation, not wholesale curtailment.
No because Freedom of Speech is a fundamental individual right. It should never be limited or restricted. A strong country will prevail over abusers in this case (think when America abolished slavery, segregation...). It is a compass for long term survival.
How is it being abused and how would one fix it?
Section 230 is just allowance for mass abuse. Why should Facebook/Twitter/Google be treated differently from a media company when they are inserting their version of the Truth ?
This is currently being used against Trump because everyone hates the guy, but wait until this is aimed into anyone that challenges the establishment. Bernie will never have a platform again.
This is currently being used against Trump because everyone hates the guy, but wait until this is aimed into anyone that challenges the establishment. Bernie will never have a platform again.
> inserting their version of the Truth
Explain?
Section 230 just says that you can't be held accountable for what other people say. How can you "abuse" that?
If Facebook/Twitter/Google are first hand saying/pubishing their own speach, then they can be held accountable for that.
Explain?
Section 230 just says that you can't be held accountable for what other people say. How can you "abuse" that?
If Facebook/Twitter/Google are first hand saying/pubishing their own speach, then they can be held accountable for that.
I imagine GP is talking about the text and links that FB/Twitter/Google are inserting on specific user created content.
The claim is that these actions fall under the purview of "curation" and "moderation" from either side respectively.
The claim is that these actions fall under the purview of "curation" and "moderation" from either side respectively.
Let’s talk about a non-politically charged example. Take the famous Zalgo post on SO https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open...
where the moderators left the content up because of its fame but added a comment at the top. SO is full of posts like this that have external significance but normally wouldn’t be allowed.
I honestly don’t see anything wrong with Twitter saying “hey we think it’s important for the president’s words to stay up but we want to be clear that they wouldn’t normally and here’s why.”
where the moderators left the content up because of its fame but added a comment at the top. SO is full of posts like this that have external significance but normally wouldn’t be allowed.
I honestly don’t see anything wrong with Twitter saying “hey we think it’s important for the president’s words to stay up but we want to be clear that they wouldn’t normally and here’s why.”
>The claim is that these actions fall under the purview of "curation" and "moderation" from either side respectively.
IIUC, if Twitter/Facebook chose, they could legally just block those tweets/posts altogether under the guise of Section 230.
In fact, they do that sort of thing all the time. The only reason they've started putting "labels" on these is because they prefer not to block stuff completely.
Either way, both section 230 and the fact that they're private (rather than government) entities give them that latitude.
Without Section 230, they'd likely just block all those posts and much, much more in order to avoid litigation.
That said, I'm less concerned about section 230 WRT to Twitter and Facebook and more concerned about small sites and blogs.
Without Section 230, anyone with deep pockets could just bury anyone who allows comments on their site in lawsuits. Twitter and Facebook could fight back and likely succeed.
But anyone without millions to spend on legal fees could easily be forced offline.
And so I wonder, what value would be added by removing section 230 protections? I'd expect that the only folks who would really benefit would be lawyers -- and the rest of us would be poorer, both in terms the diversity of voices and diversity of platforms, for it.
IIUC, if Twitter/Facebook chose, they could legally just block those tweets/posts altogether under the guise of Section 230.
In fact, they do that sort of thing all the time. The only reason they've started putting "labels" on these is because they prefer not to block stuff completely.
Either way, both section 230 and the fact that they're private (rather than government) entities give them that latitude.
Without Section 230, they'd likely just block all those posts and much, much more in order to avoid litigation.
That said, I'm less concerned about section 230 WRT to Twitter and Facebook and more concerned about small sites and blogs.
Without Section 230, anyone with deep pockets could just bury anyone who allows comments on their site in lawsuits. Twitter and Facebook could fight back and likely succeed.
But anyone without millions to spend on legal fees could easily be forced offline.
And so I wonder, what value would be added by removing section 230 protections? I'd expect that the only folks who would really benefit would be lawyers -- and the rest of us would be poorer, both in terms the diversity of voices and diversity of platforms, for it.
That text they put up, they’re responsible and liable for. That is not “section 230” protected.
Section 230 does not provide FB or Twitter with any protection for the text they add. That is not user provided content and is outside the scope of 230.
When they add their own text to, say, a Trump tweet, section 230 only protects them from liability over the content of Trump's tweet itself.
When they add their own text to, say, a Trump tweet, section 230 only protects them from liability over the content of Trump's tweet itself.
And since the labels that Twitter, Insta, TikTok, YouTube are adding to political content basically amount to “don’t assume this what you see on the internet true, here’s a link to official resources” it’s hard to argue they’re suddenly endorsing content.
>Bernie will never have a platform again.
Under what scenario will Bernie be deplatformed? Because Section 230 isn't anything new or upcoming.
Under what scenario will Bernie be deplatformed? Because Section 230 isn't anything new or upcoming.
Cory Doctorow has an interesting take on this, pointing out the pros and the cons as he sees them.
https://pluralistic.net/2020/12/04/kawaski-trawick/#230
(Unsurprisingly, he also finds in this subject further arguments to break up the platform giants, block their continuing merger-and-acquisition habits, and to mandate interoperability.)
https://pluralistic.net/2020/12/04/kawaski-trawick/#230
(Unsurprisingly, he also finds in this subject further arguments to break up the platform giants, block their continuing merger-and-acquisition habits, and to mandate interoperability.)
> who get to speak without having to host our own webservers, DNS, and CDNs
This is actually an interesting point. What counts as an "interactive computer service"? If I have a wordpress-hosted instance, are they a service? I host my own website; is Digital Ocean liable because they're hosting my web server? How far up does it actually go?
This is actually an interesting point. What counts as an "interactive computer service"? If I have a wordpress-hosted instance, are they a service? I host my own website; is Digital Ocean liable because they're hosting my web server? How far up does it actually go?
I don't want to turn this into a political rant, but a reminder about the main reason we are even arguing why we should not repeal an act designed to protect freedom of speech: Trump, the ostensible leader of the free world, was furious about #DiaperDon trending on Twitter, declaring it a threat against national security.
Hopefully in a couple of months this ludicrous furore over curtailing freedom of speech will be a non-issue again.
Hopefully in a couple of months this ludicrous furore over curtailing freedom of speech will be a non-issue again.
You are carefully neglecting he called out the partisanship from the very beginning of his term?
He is currently threatening to veto the military funding bill if it doesn’t include a rider for repealing Section 230.
I think most people would agree that has nothing to do with the military and shouldn’t be in the bill. We can only speculate on the real reasons he’s doing this now, but the timing feels like revenge for the fact-checking applied to his election claims.
I think most people would agree that has nothing to do with the military and shouldn’t be in the bill. We can only speculate on the real reasons he’s doing this now, but the timing feels like revenge for the fact-checking applied to his election claims.
Slipping in unrelated stuff into bills has been par for the course for ages now if I am not mistaken.
What about he is trying to get as much stuff through in the time he has left?
For example, the various troop pullouts : as a non-US citizen I am very pleased with the past 4 years of foreign policy.
What about he is trying to get as much stuff through in the time he has left?
For example, the various troop pullouts : as a non-US citizen I am very pleased with the past 4 years of foreign policy.
[deleted]
what if there was a section 230 carveout where you are not liable for comments on your blog, say, as long as they are
1) digitally signed (can be by anonymous identity)
2) content is id-filterable by id, by user agents (aka browsers + user controlled software), easily enough, following a reasonable man test. so users can moderate their own content following blacklists and whitelists, if they want. law enforcement and gov can of course have their own white and blacklists.
3) you take illegal content down when notified with reasonable latency period. This can be automated for mom and pops with limited resoures, if you follow illegal content blacklists maintained by gov. If someone wants to fight the blacklist, ok, the eff can go to court, supreme court if necessary. This isn't going to happen as long as black lists aren't abused.
This puts your private blog on the same footing as social media giants. Everybody follows the same rules. If government blacklist is too aggressive, society debate can go to there, where it should be. Sue the government, in court, for doing black lists too aggressively. Mom and pop isps and blog owners aren't at risk.
This also forces social media giants to make their sites content filterable by user agents.
They call it a user agent for a reason...
There doesn't have to be a government blacklist for this to work, either. I'm just saying there could be. And if there was, this should be the focus of litigation, not 230.
IE, if the blacklist was truly used only for child porn, I don't think this would go to court. But government and "powers that be" can't hide behind social media giants for censorship enforcement. They make themselves directly responsible, and it better be in a way that society finds acceptable.
1) digitally signed (can be by anonymous identity)
2) content is id-filterable by id, by user agents (aka browsers + user controlled software), easily enough, following a reasonable man test. so users can moderate their own content following blacklists and whitelists, if they want. law enforcement and gov can of course have their own white and blacklists.
3) you take illegal content down when notified with reasonable latency period. This can be automated for mom and pops with limited resoures, if you follow illegal content blacklists maintained by gov. If someone wants to fight the blacklist, ok, the eff can go to court, supreme court if necessary. This isn't going to happen as long as black lists aren't abused.
This puts your private blog on the same footing as social media giants. Everybody follows the same rules. If government blacklist is too aggressive, society debate can go to there, where it should be. Sue the government, in court, for doing black lists too aggressively. Mom and pop isps and blog owners aren't at risk.
This also forces social media giants to make their sites content filterable by user agents.
They call it a user agent for a reason...
There doesn't have to be a government blacklist for this to work, either. I'm just saying there could be. And if there was, this should be the focus of litigation, not 230.
IE, if the blacklist was truly used only for child porn, I don't think this would go to court. But government and "powers that be" can't hide behind social media giants for censorship enforcement. They make themselves directly responsible, and it better be in a way that society finds acceptable.
[deleted]
> "Without Section 230, sites that removed sexual content could be held legally responsible for that action (...) even if they wanted to create online spaces free of sexual content."
The old "think of the children!". Shame on you EFF.
The old "think of the children!". Shame on you EFF.
That’s not “think of the children”. That’s “not everybody feels like running a porn site” - for which there are completely legitimate reasons (more challenging legally, creates issues in some overseas markets, work-safe-ness, and yes - family friendliness).
This really isn’t “think of the children” so much as it is wanting to create SFW online platforms. HN is a SFW space free of sexual content.
It’s just an example of moderation that most people already understand. It’s the same if people wanted to create a woodworking forum and remove off-topic posts about goulash.
It’s just an example of moderation that most people already understand. It’s the same if people wanted to create a woodworking forum and remove off-topic posts about goulash.
Is using an example everybody agrees on to justify supression of free speech on platform that are de-facto public spaces.
There is a lot of middle ground bewtween moderation in a small forum and a complete digital exile of dissenting opinions.
For example, imagine how could you be affected if Zuckerberg really hated you. Not just Facebook/Instagram/Whastapp. It wouldn't be too difficult to him to convince other companies to also ban you, including cloudfront protected sites and credit card companies.
I realize that five years ago it would have sounded completely insane, but the precedents for those kind of bans are growing fast.
There is a lot of middle ground bewtween moderation in a small forum and a complete digital exile of dissenting opinions.
For example, imagine how could you be affected if Zuckerberg really hated you. Not just Facebook/Instagram/Whastapp. It wouldn't be too difficult to him to convince other companies to also ban you, including cloudfront protected sites and credit card companies.
I realize that five years ago it would have sounded completely insane, but the precedents for those kind of bans are growing fast.
> "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
What about "laundering" of responsibility? In other words, if a service like Twitter makes it easy to dodge your personal liability for your speech, isn't that problematic?
Can I write anything I want and then say "Gary provided the information." and I'm okay? Even if I can't tell you who Gary is?
What about "laundering" of responsibility? In other words, if a service like Twitter makes it easy to dodge your personal liability for your speech, isn't that problematic?
Can I write anything I want and then say "Gary provided the information." and I'm okay? Even if I can't tell you who Gary is?
I'm reminded of the library of babel: an "infinite" library of every combination of characters. To write a book, all you have you do is "write" a book is find the correct one, already sitting on the shelf.
If you consider that basically any opinion on a subject is recorded somewhere on YouTube, then YouTube doesn't have to "write" a thing. If they wanted to make a statement, all they have to do is sort the right thing to the top.
I personally agree with section 230, but there's a fine line between curation and moderation, and it's difficult to square with the scale of the internet. There are approximately 500 hours of video uploaded every minute on YouTube. That's 30,000 every hour, or 720,000 hours every day. No matter how infinite YouTube's resources might be, there is simply no way to human moderate all of it.
Do I think YouTube is toe-ing the line between moderation and curation effectively? Honestly, no. For myself, maybe, but not for the internet as a whole. But I don't think removing section 230 is the way to fix it.
If you consider that basically any opinion on a subject is recorded somewhere on YouTube, then YouTube doesn't have to "write" a thing. If they wanted to make a statement, all they have to do is sort the right thing to the top.
I personally agree with section 230, but there's a fine line between curation and moderation, and it's difficult to square with the scale of the internet. There are approximately 500 hours of video uploaded every minute on YouTube. That's 30,000 every hour, or 720,000 hours every day. No matter how infinite YouTube's resources might be, there is simply no way to human moderate all of it.
Do I think YouTube is toe-ing the line between moderation and curation effectively? Honestly, no. For myself, maybe, but not for the internet as a whole. But I don't think removing section 230 is the way to fix it.
30,000 hours of video per hour.
That's not that much. We can do a lot with speech to text as a starting point. And you can easily detect if speech to text isn't working very well.
And for those that are graphic you can do image detection. It's not out of reach.
That's not that much. We can do a lot with speech to text as a starting point. And you can easily detect if speech to text isn't working very well.
And for those that are graphic you can do image detection. It's not out of reach.
> We can do a lot with speech to text as a starting point. And you can easily detect if speech to text isn't working very well.
> And for those that are graphic you can do image detection. It's not out of reach.
YouTube does both of those things already. How well is it working out? Honestly, surprisingly well. But many, probably most, would argue not nearly enough, especially if you're legally liable for every frame of that video
> And for those that are graphic you can do image detection. It's not out of reach.
YouTube does both of those things already. How well is it working out? Honestly, surprisingly well. But many, probably most, would argue not nearly enough, especially if you're legally liable for every frame of that video
I'm just arguing that it's not as big of a problem as some make it seem.
And I further disagree that curated or editorialized content falls within the purview of this law. If you curate what I see, you are a publisher. If you editorialize what I see, you are a publisher.
This law was intended to allow sites to delete abusive or illegal content without being sued. It’s now being used by big tech to curate what you see, with no user control, and to editorialize content. This behavior absolutely should not be protected under Section 230.
At minimum, this section needs to be amended to exclude curated content and editorialized content.