Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content(economictimes.indiatimes.com)
economictimes.indiatimes.com
Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media liable for user content
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/brazils-supreme-court-justices-agree-to-make-social-media-companies-liable-for-user-content/articleshow/121791147.cms?from=mdr
138 comments
The real coup was perpetrated by the supreme court itself. Judges have always been "gods" in this country, and the supreme court in particular has been blatantly grabbing power since at least 2019.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423
> real coup was perpetrated by the supreme court itself
The side that storms the capital sort of gives up its ability to call the other illegitimate in a democracy.
That doesn't mean they're right. Just that the situtation in Brazil clearly escalated to the point that suspending the status quo is if not merited, highly historically precedented.
The side that storms the capital sort of gives up its ability to call the other illegitimate in a democracy.
That doesn't mean they're right. Just that the situtation in Brazil clearly escalated to the point that suspending the status quo is if not merited, highly historically precedented.
Occupying the government buildings is essentially the standard brazilian protest. It's happened many times before and will happen again. This "storming" amounted to little more than a protest.
If only that had been enough to fix things. I watched those judges censor political speech as "fake news" throughout the entire 2022 election. Then they showboated in public about how they had been personally responsible for the former president's defeat.
If only that had been enough to fix things. I watched those judges censor political speech as "fake news" throughout the entire 2022 election. Then they showboated in public about how they had been personally responsible for the former president's defeat.
> Occupying the government buildings is essentially the standard brazilian protest. It's happened many times before and will happen again
Brazil also has a history of military coups, something that mob explicitly sought to provoke [1]. It makes sense for the system to learn from past failings.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_January_Bras%C3%ADlia_attack...
Brazil also has a history of military coups, something that mob explicitly sought to provoke [1]. It makes sense for the system to learn from past failings.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_January_Bras%C3%ADlia_attack...
Not a problem. They wanted to be ruled by the military. That's a valid political stance which should not be censored.
A military coup is attempted when armed forces actually show up to overthrow you. When the heroic brazilian military showed up, it was to arrest the protesters.
A military coup is attempted when armed forces actually show up to overthrow you. When the heroic brazilian military showed up, it was to arrest the protesters.
> Not a problem. They wanted to be ruled by the military. That's a valid political stance which should not be censored.
Wat.
(EDIT: Sure? In a country with a history of not managing this well, however, it’s also dangerous. When manifested as a riot, that danger becomes clear and present.)
> it was to arrest the protesters who were begging the military on their knees to save them
Rioters who broke into the federal buildings housing each branch of the Brazilian state…
I appreciate your directness. But respectfully, I don’t think there is anything this Supreme Court could do that would meet your approval, or vice versa, those “protesters” which would find your judgement.
Wat.
(EDIT: Sure? In a country with a history of not managing this well, however, it’s also dangerous. When manifested as a riot, that danger becomes clear and present.)
> it was to arrest the protesters who were begging the military on their knees to save them
Rioters who broke into the federal buildings housing each branch of the Brazilian state…
I appreciate your directness. But respectfully, I don’t think there is anything this Supreme Court could do that would meet your approval, or vice versa, those “protesters” which would find your judgement.
> Wat.
Plenty of people out there who enjoyed the military dictatorship.
Did you know the Lua programming language was born in it? The military wanted to replace technology imports with native products. That gave rise to industry and technology. We even tried making our own computers once. That bit of history has been posted to HN at least once.
I can totally see why they'd prefer that to the current Brazil which is essentially the world's soy farm, to say nothing of the endless corruption scandals and crushing taxation.
> Rioters who broke into the federal buildings housing each branch of the Brazilian state
Protesters from the current ruling party have set fire to those buildings before. It's nothing new.
> I don’t think there is anything this Supreme Court could do that would meet your approval
I would approve of their resignation.
Plenty of people out there who enjoyed the military dictatorship.
Did you know the Lua programming language was born in it? The military wanted to replace technology imports with native products. That gave rise to industry and technology. We even tried making our own computers once. That bit of history has been posted to HN at least once.
I can totally see why they'd prefer that to the current Brazil which is essentially the world's soy farm, to say nothing of the endless corruption scandals and crushing taxation.
> Rioters who broke into the federal buildings housing each branch of the Brazilian state
Protesters from the current ruling party have set fire to those buildings before. It's nothing new.
> I don’t think there is anything this Supreme Court could do that would meet your approval
I would approve of their resignation.
> Plenty of people out there who enjoyed the military dictatorship
Fair enough. I imagine the military dictatorship wouldn’t be too happy with folks trying to overthrow it. Part of designing a stable state is maneouvering against such volatility.
Fair enough. I imagine the military dictatorship wouldn’t be too happy with folks trying to overthrow it. Part of designing a stable state is maneouvering against such volatility.
This state is anything but stable. The supreme court has become the de facto rulers of this country. For some reason they didn't maneuver against that.
> supreme court has become the de facto rulers of this country
Let’s say that’s true. How is this structurally dissimilar from the military being in charge?
Let’s say that’s true. How is this structurally dissimilar from the military being in charge?
It's not. They are both unelected authoritarian dictatorships. If I must live under a dictatorship, I want it to be a regime that somewhat aligns with my values and interests at the very least.
The people in power right now are communists and socialists. It's not even an understatement. Nazis go straight to jail but these socialists walk our soil completely unpunished even though they are far more damaging.
The people in power right now are communists and socialists. It's not even an understatement. Nazis go straight to jail but these socialists walk our soil completely unpunished even though they are far more damaging.
[deleted]
I feel like coups are more likely in developing or socialist countries. An American coup at this point seems very unlikely to work thanks to “learning from past failings” and stuff like advanced weapons systems. I mean heck, we can’t even escape the two party system, imagine overthrowing them and the federal government in one swoop, and doing that by means of citizen protestors occupying a building. Seems crazy to worry about that so much for years and years.
A straight-up military coup is unlikely but not by much. In fact, former President Bolsonaro and most of his closest allies in government are on trial for planning exactly that.
In any case, other, "softer", coups have been happening with alarming frequency in South America, Brazil included.
In any case, other, "softer", coups have been happening with alarming frequency in South America, Brazil included.
> coups are more likely in developing or socialist countries
Developing, yes. (Socialist, I don’t know.)
> we can’t even escape the two party system, imagine overthrowing them and the federal government in one swoop, and doing that by means of citizen protestors occupying a building
Protests are pretext.
The Brazilian protests didn’t anticipate overthrowing the government themselves. They wanted the military to depose the elected government. In America, a protest would be used either as an excuse to impose ersatz martial law or a sign that the people don’t agree with the election (or whatever). The actual killing moves are rendered by those who can command guns.
Developing, yes. (Socialist, I don’t know.)
> we can’t even escape the two party system, imagine overthrowing them and the federal government in one swoop, and doing that by means of citizen protestors occupying a building
Protests are pretext.
The Brazilian protests didn’t anticipate overthrowing the government themselves. They wanted the military to depose the elected government. In America, a protest would be used either as an excuse to impose ersatz martial law or a sign that the people don’t agree with the election (or whatever). The actual killing moves are rendered by those who can command guns.
> only that had been enough to fix things.
Exactly! You, just like the people that was there and now are in jail, wanted that to "fix things", or calling it for the right name, a coup. It didn't work well.
Exactly! You, just like the people that was there and now are in jail, wanted that to "fix things", or calling it for the right name, a coup. It didn't work well.
I don't blame them at all. Who are you supposed to turn to when the supreme court starts censoring you? There's no one else above them.
They even literally asked for Extra-Terrestrial help. Funny times.
Awaiting 4 years for the next election is not that painful.
Awaiting 4 years for the next election is not that painful.
I think it's sad, not funny.
Supreme court judges are not elected. They don't even have to pass tests.
Supreme court judges are not elected. They don't even have to pass tests.
> They don't even have to pass tests.
That's not true. At the very least, they need to be Law Bachelors. Furthermore, after being nominated by the President they need to get approval from the Senate.
That's not true. At the very least, they need to be Law Bachelors. Furthermore, after being nominated by the President they need to get approval from the Senate.
By "tests" I meant concurso público. There isn't a good English term for that.
Every other judge is a law professional who studied hard to pass the test. They compete for the judge positions with thousands and thousands of other professionals. The supreme court judges did not necessarily pass such a trial. Therefore, it is entirely possible and even likely for the judges of lesser courts to be more knowledgeable about law than the supreme court.
Just yet another example of how backwards this country is.
Every other judge is a law professional who studied hard to pass the test. They compete for the judge positions with thousands and thousands of other professionals. The supreme court judges did not necessarily pass such a trial. Therefore, it is entirely possible and even likely for the judges of lesser courts to be more knowledgeable about law than the supreme court.
Just yet another example of how backwards this country is.
> By "tests" I meant concurso público. There isn't a good English term for that.
Those are essentially admission tests. They're not meant to test the knowledge or ability of the candidates, but rather as a way to filter out the excess because there's higher demand than offer of those jobs.
The Supreme Court justices don't have to do that because they are selected by the President instead.
> Every other judge is a law professional who studied hard to pass the test.
Some of the supreme court justices might have not passed admission tests for jobs they were not interested in but that says exactly nothing about their intelligence or knowledge of the law.
> Therefore, it is entirely possible and even likely for the judges of lesser courts to be more knowledgeable about law than the supreme court.
No doubt it's possible but I find some of the foundational premises of your chain of causation to be misguided at best.
If these tests were actually that good in filtering the cream of the crop, how do we end up with people like Sérgio Moro who can't follow simple logic and has repeatedly demonstrated a profound ignorance of how the Brazilian Civil Law system differs from his FBI training on Common Law concepts and strategies?
One of the largest corruption scandals in the history of the country ended up mostly annulled because it was so full of vices that Cracolândia junkies seem productive and well adjusted in comparison.
Furthermore, you have complained in other comments that the justices are not elected. Leaving out any arguments around why that's the case, and why this is a desired feature of the system, how is that compatible with the lack of admission tests? There are so many goalposts in your messages that it's very difficult to understand what you actually think could be any better than what's currently in place.
Those are essentially admission tests. They're not meant to test the knowledge or ability of the candidates, but rather as a way to filter out the excess because there's higher demand than offer of those jobs.
The Supreme Court justices don't have to do that because they are selected by the President instead.
> Every other judge is a law professional who studied hard to pass the test.
Some of the supreme court justices might have not passed admission tests for jobs they were not interested in but that says exactly nothing about their intelligence or knowledge of the law.
> Therefore, it is entirely possible and even likely for the judges of lesser courts to be more knowledgeable about law than the supreme court.
No doubt it's possible but I find some of the foundational premises of your chain of causation to be misguided at best.
If these tests were actually that good in filtering the cream of the crop, how do we end up with people like Sérgio Moro who can't follow simple logic and has repeatedly demonstrated a profound ignorance of how the Brazilian Civil Law system differs from his FBI training on Common Law concepts and strategies?
One of the largest corruption scandals in the history of the country ended up mostly annulled because it was so full of vices that Cracolândia junkies seem productive and well adjusted in comparison.
Furthermore, you have complained in other comments that the justices are not elected. Leaving out any arguments around why that's the case, and why this is a desired feature of the system, how is that compatible with the lack of admission tests? There are so many goalposts in your messages that it's very difficult to understand what you actually think could be any better than what's currently in place.
> that says exactly nothing about their intelligence or knowledge of the law
I disagree. I have far more confidence in judges who competed vigorously for their positions than in judges who were merely appointed by presidents.
> If these tests were actually that good in filtering the cream of the crop, how do we end up with people like Sérgio Moro
Every test has the potential for false positives and false negatives. We want to select good judges and reject bad judges. There is an inherent risk of selecting bad judges and rejecting good judges.
Of course, the exact statistics have never been determined. It's reasonable to assume that the tests optimize for low false positive rate. Rejecting good judges is not as bad as accepting a bad judge.
By reading court cases, I formed a very positive opinion of concursado judges. I've always found their argumentation to be lucid and persuasive, even when I didn't agree with their rulings. I simply can't say the same of the supreme court.
> One of the largest corruption scandals in the history of the country ended up mostly annulled
That fact deeply disgusts me. It really does. I wish things had worked out differently.
> how is that compatible with the lack of admission tests?
It's not. I believe supreme court judges should also have to pass admission tests. That should be the one and only way to become a supreme court judge.
I claim the supreme court has amassed so much power it is now openly legislating. It's effectively running the country. These people are not elected representatives. Therefore, it follows that Brazil is not actually a democracy. That is the point I sought to make in this thread.
I don't actually want judges to be elected. I just think that's a requirement for Brazil to be called a democracy at this point in time. If we're a democracy, and judges hold all the power, then we should be able to vote for them.
The only reason I go out of my way to point out that these are unelected judges is to highlight the fact that Brazil is a democracy in name only.
I disagree. I have far more confidence in judges who competed vigorously for their positions than in judges who were merely appointed by presidents.
> If these tests were actually that good in filtering the cream of the crop, how do we end up with people like Sérgio Moro
Every test has the potential for false positives and false negatives. We want to select good judges and reject bad judges. There is an inherent risk of selecting bad judges and rejecting good judges.
Of course, the exact statistics have never been determined. It's reasonable to assume that the tests optimize for low false positive rate. Rejecting good judges is not as bad as accepting a bad judge.
By reading court cases, I formed a very positive opinion of concursado judges. I've always found their argumentation to be lucid and persuasive, even when I didn't agree with their rulings. I simply can't say the same of the supreme court.
> One of the largest corruption scandals in the history of the country ended up mostly annulled
That fact deeply disgusts me. It really does. I wish things had worked out differently.
> how is that compatible with the lack of admission tests?
It's not. I believe supreme court judges should also have to pass admission tests. That should be the one and only way to become a supreme court judge.
I claim the supreme court has amassed so much power it is now openly legislating. It's effectively running the country. These people are not elected representatives. Therefore, it follows that Brazil is not actually a democracy. That is the point I sought to make in this thread.
I don't actually want judges to be elected. I just think that's a requirement for Brazil to be called a democracy at this point in time. If we're a democracy, and judges hold all the power, then we should be able to vote for them.
The only reason I go out of my way to point out that these are unelected judges is to highlight the fact that Brazil is a democracy in name only.
They gotta follow the constitution. And judge criminals. Exactly that is what they are doing. For that to be happening at the same time as the US devolve into a dictatorship is quite didactic
> They gotta follow the constitution.
No, they don't. They can do whatever they want and nobody can do a thing about it. Whatever they write on a paper becomes law, simply because police enforces it.
The fact they weren't and aren't following the constitution was a major cause of January 8th. Censorship is unconstitutional in Brazil, especially that of a political nature. And political censorship is exactly what they engaged in. They just happened to use euphemisms like "fake news". I remember one case where they censordd a documentary before it was even published. A priori censorship, something not seen in these lands since the military dictatorship.
> And judge criminals.
Supreme court's purpose is to judge politicians with immunity and assorted privilges. Not common citizens.
No, they don't. They can do whatever they want and nobody can do a thing about it. Whatever they write on a paper becomes law, simply because police enforces it.
The fact they weren't and aren't following the constitution was a major cause of January 8th. Censorship is unconstitutional in Brazil, especially that of a political nature. And political censorship is exactly what they engaged in. They just happened to use euphemisms like "fake news". I remember one case where they censordd a documentary before it was even published. A priori censorship, something not seen in these lands since the military dictatorship.
> And judge criminals.
Supreme court's purpose is to judge politicians with immunity and assorted privilges. Not common citizens.
I'm glad the people that think like you are a tiny minority that is being persecuted and answering for the crimes. The supreme court never worked better.
I realize you abide the court's abuses because it's convenient for you and your ideology. I'm trying to warn you that one day it will be your turn to be persecuted, as it often happens.
I do hope I'm still around to post about it when it does. I wouldn't wish such a fate on anyone. Even you, someone who thinks I should be imprisoned for my thoughts, should not be censored and persecuted for it.
I do hope I'm still around to post about it when it does. I wouldn't wish such a fate on anyone. Even you, someone who thinks I should be imprisoned for my thoughts, should not be censored and persecuted for it.
I always like going to the source for things like that. As the article mentioned, the voting hasn't concluded yet. This article has a link to the seven votes so far, with the full explanation for each one: https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-avanca-em-anal...
You are wrong, sorry.
The STF vote stands at 6-1, and the result is now irreversible. With only 11 justices, even if the remaining four voted against, the majority would still be maintained (6 votes vs. 5).
But there’s only one more fascist judge left on the bench, so the final tally will end up 9 to 2. The decision is final.
The STF vote stands at 6-1, and the result is now irreversible. With only 11 justices, even if the remaining four voted against, the majority would still be maintained (6 votes vs. 5).
But there’s only one more fascist judge left on the bench, so the final tally will end up 9 to 2. The decision is final.
> The STF vote stands at 6-1, and the result is now irreversible.
Even then, the detailed justification for each vote is interesting. Just the first one is nearly 200 pages, and presents the whole history of the discussion, mentions precedents from not only the country but also about related laws all over the world, explains what would be the consequences of this particular article being considered invalid (it's not a simple "make them liable", it's the removal of a specific article which prevented them from being liable, which means other articles still apply), and so on. This is much more detailed and nuanced than what a single six-paragraph article can tell. That's the reason I prefer to go to the source for things like that.
Even then, the detailed justification for each vote is interesting. Just the first one is nearly 200 pages, and presents the whole history of the discussion, mentions precedents from not only the country but also about related laws all over the world, explains what would be the consequences of this particular article being considered invalid (it's not a simple "make them liable", it's the removal of a specific article which prevented them from being liable, which means other articles still apply), and so on. This is much more detailed and nuanced than what a single six-paragraph article can tell. That's the reason I prefer to go to the source for things like that.
I have no idea how Brazil courts work. In the US the supreme court often has 200 page opinion full of high-IQ hot air, which all sound very nice and nuanced. But in practice they know damn well what they're really doing is a long wink and a nod and then they just deny cert anytime the lower courts do their real bidding because they know everything they wrote was bullshit and they don't want to have to hold themselves to it, the point was just to keep up appearances while rolling out the red carpet.
It will be really interesting to watch how this unfolds. My hypothesis: Meta, X et al. will threaten to just wholesale IP-block the country (not worth the risk), and it will become a game of Chicken.
Side note: The density of ads on that page is almost impressive.
Side note: The density of ads on that page is almost impressive.
I always use an adblocker and that page is a stubborn one, it just keeps blocking after a couple of minutes as the count rises to 100+
Here’s an analogy: If a radio station or TV channel taught a child to cut themselves, self-harm, or drink toilet water, that broadcaster would be held accountable.
So how can we allow social media platforms to escape responsibility? Children are dying.
So how can we allow social media platforms to escape responsibility? Children are dying.
I think this viewpoint is not to be dismissed, but I think a way to improve the analogy would be: What if the programs that that TV channel showed were not custom-built by the channel itself, but rather created on-the-fly by millions of anonymous people?
The problem isn't that a child knows how to cut themselves, it's that they lack guidance in life teaching them why that is a dumb idea, or if too young to learn that, supervising them so that they don't.
That reaction would be glorious but I doubt it's going to happen. Too much money at stake. They're likely to just accept it, just like they accept chinese control.
Brazil wants to become like China. One of the judge-kings even declared his admiration for the chinese and their control of communications. It's quite terrifying.
Donald Trump has been threatening sanctions against these people for a while now. What's he waiting for?
Brazil wants to become like China. One of the judge-kings even declared his admiration for the chinese and their control of communications. It's quite terrifying.
Donald Trump has been threatening sanctions against these people for a while now. What's he waiting for?
By that logic, the USA also wants to become like China. The current POTUS, Donald J. Trump declared his admiration for the strong chinese response to the Tiananmen Square protests.
* https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-praised-china-tiananme...
* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/11/donald-trump...
( and numerous other reports since his 1990 comments )
* https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-praised-china-tiananme...
* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/11/donald-trump...
( and numerous other reports since his 1990 comments )
He's a bit of a tyrant himself, isn't he? It's alarming but I suppose it's not surprising. Haven't seen him defend censorship yet though.
> Haven't seen him defend censorship yet though
Literally kicked the Associated Press out of the White House because they wouldn't toe the line on calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America [1].
[1] https://www.ap.org/media-center/ap-in-the-news/2025/white-ho...
Literally kicked the Associated Press out of the White House because they wouldn't toe the line on calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America [1].
[1] https://www.ap.org/media-center/ap-in-the-news/2025/white-ho...
Watch what people do rather than judge only on what they say.
Trump’s aggressive actions against free speech speak a lot louder than his words defending it
https://theconversation.com/trumps-aggressive-actions-agains...
Trump’s aggressive actions against free speech speak a lot louder than his words defending it
https://theconversation.com/trumps-aggressive-actions-agains...
> By that logic, the USA also wants to become like China.
Yes it (or at least the presently ruling faction) absolutely wants that substantively, but with a White Christian nationalist rather than Communist rhetorical focus.
Not really the kind of “by that logic...” that is useful for rebutting the argument it targets.
Yes it (or at least the presently ruling faction) absolutely wants that substantively, but with a White Christian nationalist rather than Communist rhetorical focus.
Not really the kind of “by that logic...” that is useful for rebutting the argument it targets.
> that is useful for discretion the argument it targets.
dissecting? discussing?
It serves to make a reader ponder whether an individual (judge or POTUS) sets the mood of an entire country (does Brazil or the US 'want' what a judge or POTUS wants?) and reminds us that the current US administration admires strongarm tactics.
dissecting? discussing?
It serves to make a reader ponder whether an individual (judge or POTUS) sets the mood of an entire country (does Brazil or the US 'want' what a judge or POTUS wants?) and reminds us that the current US administration admires strongarm tactics.
Your comments are appreciated. I wasn't aware of the information you posted.
> Brazil wants to become like China.
Here's a clear sign of a typical "Bozotário" paranoia: reduce every sensible discussion to a leftist conspiracy.
> One of the judge-kings even declared his admiration for the chinese and their control of communications.
Sure. And since you found that in your WhatsApp group then it has to be true. Because no one lies in WhatsApp, right?
Here's a clear sign of a typical "Bozotário" paranoia: reduce every sensible discussion to a leftist conspiracy.
> One of the judge-kings even declared his admiration for the chinese and their control of communications.
Sure. And since you found that in your WhatsApp group then it has to be true. Because no one lies in WhatsApp, right?
> Here's a clear sign of a typical "Bozotário" paranoia
Nobody mentioned Bolsonaro. He's history.
> And since you found that in your WhatsApp group then it has to be true.
You don't have to take it from me. Here's a top Google search result:
https://www.terra.com.br/noticias/brasil/politica/somos-admi...
"We are admirers of the chinese regime."
Take it up with whoever wrote that article if you disagree. Either way, refrain from replying to my comments in the future. I really have no inclination to engage with sarcastic "WhatsApp uncle" arguments.
Nobody mentioned Bolsonaro. He's history.
> And since you found that in your WhatsApp group then it has to be true.
You don't have to take it from me. Here's a top Google search result:
https://www.terra.com.br/noticias/brasil/politica/somos-admi...
"We are admirers of the chinese regime."
Take it up with whoever wrote that article if you disagree. Either way, refrain from replying to my comments in the future. I really have no inclination to engage with sarcastic "WhatsApp uncle" arguments.
Censorship is no longer the tool of choice of wannabe dictators. Instead, the focus is now on editorializing of communication channels. Open up the front page of X in a private tab, and see how everything is far right propaganda. Who needs to censor anything anymore? Simply downrank whatever displeases you into oblivion.
Good for Brazil, maybe they can slow down the fascist disease that rots our democracies from the inside.
Good for Brazil, maybe they can slow down the fascist disease that rots our democracies from the inside.
I think they can rely on the general lack of critical thinking skills in the general populace as more effective than constraining information. who have been taught to trust what they read, unless it is dead obvious that what they're reading is fiction (like a novel or comic book). All they have to do is flood social media with propaganda and drown out any truth to be found there. It's a very popular tactic on X around election time.
If they manipulate the feed (add, hide, reorder) then they should be held liable for user content.
There's probably a lot of politics behind this judgement that shaped it. But to a certain degree it's fair. Why would social media companies only make money from what users do on their platform but be spared any accountability?
Everything a user does on a social media platform is visible to the company and is monetized. Is any other sector spared any accountability when they know the customer is breaking the law?
This will be expensive for the company because they have to not just moderate, but do it under a patchwork of different countries' laws. But they were more than happy to make bank for years from this, put all that money to good use. It will also create some opportunity for abuse but then again so is allowing anything and everything on the platform.
Everything a user does on a social media platform is visible to the company and is monetized. Is any other sector spared any accountability when they know the customer is breaking the law?
This will be expensive for the company because they have to not just moderate, but do it under a patchwork of different countries' laws. But they were more than happy to make bank for years from this, put all that money to good use. It will also create some opportunity for abuse but then again so is allowing anything and everything on the platform.
> Everything a user does on a social media platform is visible to the company and is monetized.
Well, it's visible to the computers. It's potentially visible to a human, but no company has humans actually reading all that content.
And no, an AI is not adequate to filter it, either.
Well, it's visible to the computers. It's potentially visible to a human, but no company has humans actually reading all that content.
And no, an AI is not adequate to filter it, either.
[deleted]
>Why would social media companies only make money from what users do on their platform but be spared any accountability?
Here's the thing that confuses me. In every country I know, TV and radio stations are liable for the content they broadcast. Both in terms of programs and also ads. I've seen several fines being issued for such breaches, and my country is very liberal and loosely regulated here. So then why do we let social media broadcast whatever poison they want, plus all those scammy and predatory ads to people and get away with it?
That's how big-tech social media oligarchies got so insanely rich compared to brick and mortar businesses. All the scale of the global internet, with none of the liability. Maybe it's time to change that?
Here's the thing that confuses me. In every country I know, TV and radio stations are liable for the content they broadcast. Both in terms of programs and also ads. I've seen several fines being issued for such breaches, and my country is very liberal and loosely regulated here. So then why do we let social media broadcast whatever poison they want, plus all those scammy and predatory ads to people and get away with it?
That's how big-tech social media oligarchies got so insanely rich compared to brick and mortar businesses. All the scale of the global internet, with none of the liability. Maybe it's time to change that?
This isn't entirely true in all cases. Consider something like a live broadcast of a sporting event. If some streaker runs naked across the field, are the stations held to account?
That is, in a way, similar to the problem of user-generated content. There is a limit to how much control a social media company will be able to have over the actions of its users. Unless you replace the system entirely with one where all posts are manually approved by a person before they go up, you will need to have at least some reduced liability for the platform owner.
That is, in a way, similar to the problem of user-generated content. There is a limit to how much control a social media company will be able to have over the actions of its users. Unless you replace the system entirely with one where all posts are manually approved by a person before they go up, you will need to have at least some reduced liability for the platform owner.
>If some streaker runs naked across the field, are the stations held to account?
If they made no reasonable attempts to move the camera away or cut the feed to something else, yes absolutely they are held accountable. That's why you have TV directors in the studio. Do you think you can get away with lengthy broadcasting of obscene nudity just because you're live?
Have you seen major sporting events like F1? Their broadcasting rooms look like NASA, dozens of people looking as several camera feeds simultaneously and picking the best one. They'll definitely see a naked man running on the field with his junk out in due time and not share that feed. I assume it's the same for FIFA, NFL, NBA, NHL, Golf, Tennis, Cricket and any other major sporting event.
If they made no reasonable attempts to move the camera away or cut the feed to something else, yes absolutely they are held accountable. That's why you have TV directors in the studio. Do you think you can get away with lengthy broadcasting of obscene nudity just because you're live?
Have you seen major sporting events like F1? Their broadcasting rooms look like NASA, dozens of people looking as several camera feeds simultaneously and picking the best one. They'll definitely see a naked man running on the field with his junk out in due time and not share that feed. I assume it's the same for FIFA, NFL, NBA, NHL, Golf, Tennis, Cricket and any other major sporting event.
Of course, but that was my point. Even in traditional media, exceptions are made for factors outside the control of the publisher. User-generated content is, by definition, outside the control of the platform so there should be at least some exceptions made for it. Some mix of filtering, moderation, and content flagging are its form of "reasonable attempts" to moderate the platform.
There is a legitimate argument social media can for being treated differently given their content is user generated. But that argument falls to pieces given algorithmic boosting, which is clearly an editorial slant.
"Algorithmic boosting" is not (always?) the same as an editorial slant. Promoting the post with the longest title would be an "algorithmic boost", but clearly not editorial in any way. The most common forms of algorithms are just a function of the number of times people viewed it weighted against the age of the post; there is still no editorial slant there. Even recommendations algorithms like YouTube are mostly the same, with an additional weight based on how likely others who watched the same things as you were to view that video.
> "Algorithmic boosting" is not (always?) the same as an editorial slant
I'd argue any algorithmic prioritisation whose rules are not made public, or where discretion is applied, constittues editorial slant. It's why I'd argue HN up/down voting (even flagging) is not editorial slant, while e.g. @dang removing a post is.
I'd argue any algorithmic prioritisation whose rules are not made public, or where discretion is applied, constittues editorial slant. It's why I'd argue HN up/down voting (even flagging) is not editorial slant, while e.g. @dang removing a post is.
Think about how this would apply to hacker news? Not all algorithmic bias is evil. If you want to avoid an echo chamber, design an algorithm to boost interesting content that missed the front page. That shouldn't render you vulnerable to legislation.
And would this allow Brazil to prosecute hacker news for cyber security violations if a user posts content regarding Flipper Zero or Japanese IC cards, or data breaches of Brazilian companies...
I think the line should be drawn at ads... and maybe even all profit centers of social media companies.
And would this allow Brazil to prosecute hacker news for cyber security violations if a user posts content regarding Flipper Zero or Japanese IC cards, or data breaches of Brazilian companies...
I think the line should be drawn at ads... and maybe even all profit centers of social media companies.
> how this would apply to hacker news?
HN features group-based passive moderation based on well-communicated rules. And active moderation based on a fuzzier standard. The latter is absolutely an editorial standard.
> would this allow Brazil to prosecute hacker news for cyber security violations if a user posts content regarding Flipper Zero or Japanese IC cards, or data breaches of Brazilian companies
If it were posted here, moderators were notified and they chose not to flag (or geoblock) it, yes, I think that’s not totally unfair.
Where this current ruling is ambiguous is in being totally non-specific about how it should be complied with.
HN features group-based passive moderation based on well-communicated rules. And active moderation based on a fuzzier standard. The latter is absolutely an editorial standard.
> would this allow Brazil to prosecute hacker news for cyber security violations if a user posts content regarding Flipper Zero or Japanese IC cards, or data breaches of Brazilian companies
If it were posted here, moderators were notified and they chose not to flag (or geoblock) it, yes, I think that’s not totally unfair.
Where this current ruling is ambiguous is in being totally non-specific about how it should be complied with.
> The latter is absolutely an editorial standard.
It is the editorial standard of the community not the company. It seems that this law would pit the company against the community at the behest of the local state.
Whereas I suggest removing bias introduced by and benefiting the company (ads). This legislation forces the company to introduce additional bias which, though not financial, benefits the company legally.
> If it were posted here, moderators were notified and they chose not to flag (or geoblock) it, yes, I think that’s not totally unfair.
To clarify, it would be fair for hackernews to be sued for failing to remove or geoblock such content? Doesn't this in essence balkanize international communities and defeat the spirit of the Internet? The cesspit of social media is due to forced bias and the solution is to introduce more bias?
It is the editorial standard of the community not the company. It seems that this law would pit the company against the community at the behest of the local state.
Whereas I suggest removing bias introduced by and benefiting the company (ads). This legislation forces the company to introduce additional bias which, though not financial, benefits the company legally.
> If it were posted here, moderators were notified and they chose not to flag (or geoblock) it, yes, I think that’s not totally unfair.
To clarify, it would be fair for hackernews to be sued for failing to remove or geoblock such content? Doesn't this in essence balkanize international communities and defeat the spirit of the Internet? The cesspit of social media is due to forced bias and the solution is to introduce more bias?
> It is the editorial standard of the community not the company
Passive moderation, i.e. upvoting and downvoting, is a standard of the community's. Active moderation, e.g. @dang removing a comment, is a standard of the company.
> Doesn't this in essence balkanize international communities and defeat the spirit of the Internet?
We passed that turn-off a decade ago.
Passive moderation, i.e. upvoting and downvoting, is a standard of the community's. Active moderation, e.g. @dang removing a comment, is a standard of the company.
> Doesn't this in essence balkanize international communities and defeat the spirit of the Internet?
We passed that turn-off a decade ago.
In my mind @dang works for the community. I think my argument stands under such a hypothetical.
I didn't realize @dang was employed by Y Combinator.
I didn't realize @dang was employed by Y Combinator.
Depends on what you mean by "algorithmic boosting".
If you mean, "this user viewed A, B, and C. Other users who viewed them also viewed D; let's show D to this user", then no, that's not an editorial slant or an editorial choice. That's an unbiased algorithm driven by users' choices.
If you mean, "Let's identify posts that are related to position Y on subject Z, and boost them extra", then yes, I agree that is an editorial slant.
My impression is that, when people talk about "editorial control", they usually include the first kind, not just the second.
So: How much of the second kind is going on? More than none, I agree, but how much? Does anyone have data? If not, then we're left with impressions, and my impression is that it's fairly small. (Rather, that it's a quite small number of topics, but since it's probably fairly popular topics it may still amount to a fair number of user impressions.)
If you mean, "this user viewed A, B, and C. Other users who viewed them also viewed D; let's show D to this user", then no, that's not an editorial slant or an editorial choice. That's an unbiased algorithm driven by users' choices.
If you mean, "Let's identify posts that are related to position Y on subject Z, and boost them extra", then yes, I agree that is an editorial slant.
My impression is that, when people talk about "editorial control", they usually include the first kind, not just the second.
So: How much of the second kind is going on? More than none, I agree, but how much? Does anyone have data? If not, then we're left with impressions, and my impression is that it's fairly small. (Rather, that it's a quite small number of topics, but since it's probably fairly popular topics it may still amount to a fair number of user impressions.)
>as its content is user generated
Content on TV stations is also mostly third party generated. Channel 5 didn't make The Punisher, they bought the rights to play it on air. Radio 2 didn't make In da Club, but 50 Cent did, they're just playing it on air. Newspapers also publish letters and content from readers, yet unlike social media they're the ones responsible for that content.
Because in many countries, content is age restricted per times of day, so the TV and radio statins need to edit the songs and movies they play to cut out various swear words, violence and sex scenes if they want to air to to general audiences, otherwise they get fined.
So why are social media companies allowed to wreak havok?
Content on TV stations is also mostly third party generated. Channel 5 didn't make The Punisher, they bought the rights to play it on air. Radio 2 didn't make In da Club, but 50 Cent did, they're just playing it on air. Newspapers also publish letters and content from readers, yet unlike social media they're the ones responsible for that content.
Because in many countries, content is age restricted per times of day, so the TV and radio statins need to edit the songs and movies they play to cut out various swear words, violence and sex scenes if they want to air to to general audiences, otherwise they get fined.
So why are social media companies allowed to wreak havok?
That's highlighting the difference, TV stations actively chose what to show, defaulting to rejecting. Social media is the opposite, kind of makes sense to have different rules.
>Social media is the opposite
Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue.
If they don't want to be responsible for what they show to users, maybe they should leave all that ad money on the table, but it seems like they have no moral issues cashing those cheques while outsourcing their externalities to society. It's not like Meta is scrambling for change between the couch cushions and can't invest in better human plus bot moderation and curation. But then Zuck will only be able to afford a gold trim on his yacht instead of the platinum one, and a smaller island. Oh no, how sad, how terrible.
So tell me again, why do we have double standards for super wealthy social media oligopolies compared to traditional mediums?
Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue.
If they don't want to be responsible for what they show to users, maybe they should leave all that ad money on the table, but it seems like they have no moral issues cashing those cheques while outsourcing their externalities to society. It's not like Meta is scrambling for change between the couch cushions and can't invest in better human plus bot moderation and curation. But then Zuck will only be able to afford a gold trim on his yacht instead of the platinum one, and a smaller island. Oh no, how sad, how terrible.
So tell me again, why do we have double standards for super wealthy social media oligopolies compared to traditional mediums?
> Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue.
That's not true, Bluesky has "chose your own algorithm" and Mastodon even less, it's just in chronological order (or "chose your own client"), and lots of other social media sites that don't have algorithms that decide what you're seeing. Classic web forums (which I'd call social media too) also typically show content in chronological order.
That's not true, Bluesky has "chose your own algorithm" and Mastodon even less, it's just in chronological order (or "chose your own client"), and lots of other social media sites that don't have algorithms that decide what you're seeing. Classic web forums (which I'd call social media too) also typically show content in chronological order.
With LLMs, the solution seems simple: the utility provides your device with a fire hose. And your agent, the author of which has some liability for what it shows you, curates it.
If the company providing the fire hose also wants to supply the agent, or even lock its users into its own agent, that sums up who’s responsible.
If the company providing the fire hose also wants to supply the agent, or even lock its users into its own agent, that sums up who’s responsible.
Yep, just another reason they should be held liable the same as everybody else.
are you and GP are saying that all social media platform should perform policing to the point that everything outlaw in every countries should be banned?
yes, that's how the law works, social media platforms can't show nazi content in germany cos that's the law there. they're perfectly fine doing it.
Germany is a country without freedom of speech, where people can be fined for criticising politicians online. It's not something anyone should be aiming to emulate.
> where people can be fined for criticising politicians online
Brazil has flirted with that sort of tyranny as well. This is what this is all about. Censorship of political "fake news" that harms the ruling party. They decide what's fake, of course.
Brazil has flirted with that sort of tyranny as well. This is what this is all about. Censorship of political "fake news" that harms the ruling party. They decide what's fake, of course.
That is up for Germans to decide, not foreign social media platforms.
Here's the thing, Germans don't get to make that choice, their politicians do it for them. Sure, you can vote on some politicians, but what do you do when freedom of speech is not on anyone's menu as they all share different views than you on what freedom of speech is?
Having something like the First Amendment in the constitution means no politician can fuck with your freedom of speech too much. It's one of the things that makes the US the longest running democracy to date.
Having something like the First Amendment in the constitution means no politician can fuck with your freedom of speech too much. It's one of the things that makes the US the longest running democracy to date.
oh damn, that has worked so well for the people being placed in prison due to their speech, the students having their visas revoked and all activists that have been killed by the government.
americans really live in a different planet. you only have freedom of speech when your speech is irrelevant or when it doesn't conflict with the views of the elites.
americans really live in a different planet. you only have freedom of speech when your speech is irrelevant or when it doesn't conflict with the views of the elites.
>people being placed in prison due to their speech, the students having their visas revoked and all activists that have been killed by the government
Let's address your points:
2) There's nothing illegal or wrong with student visas being revoked with reason. You break the law, your visa gets revoked, it's that simple. It's part of the terms and conditions of immigrating on a visa in any civilized country with a rule of law (barring Germany maybe). Have the students on a visa tried, you know, studying, instead of breaking laws? I myself never struggled to not break the laws where I travel to foreign countries. I don't see where the issues lie.
1) Who is being put in prison just for speech? Is that speech consisting of throwing rocks at police by any chance?
3) Which activists did the government kill?
Those are all some wild accusations that require citations form some reliable sources in order to be taken seriously.
>americans really live in a different planet. you only have freedom of speech when your speech is irrelevant or when it doesn't conflict with the views of the elites.
Let's put freedom of speech to a test. If you're in Germany, go on X, go to the profile of chancellor Friedrich Merz and call him a "corrupt politician and traitor of the people" and also say how a certain group of illegal immigrants responsible for majority of terror attacks doesn't belong in Germany. Then let's see how far your freedom of speech goes in Germany. Post a link here with the comment as proof when you're done. Otherwise, please refrain from criticizing other nations speech laws since you're throwing rocks at a stone castle from a glass house.
My point with this is there's no perfect freedom of speech, but myself I'd much rather the unrestricted freedom of speech of the world's oldest democracy, rather than the government controlled speech of Germany or the UK.
Let's address your points:
2) There's nothing illegal or wrong with student visas being revoked with reason. You break the law, your visa gets revoked, it's that simple. It's part of the terms and conditions of immigrating on a visa in any civilized country with a rule of law (barring Germany maybe). Have the students on a visa tried, you know, studying, instead of breaking laws? I myself never struggled to not break the laws where I travel to foreign countries. I don't see where the issues lie.
1) Who is being put in prison just for speech? Is that speech consisting of throwing rocks at police by any chance?
3) Which activists did the government kill?
Those are all some wild accusations that require citations form some reliable sources in order to be taken seriously.
>americans really live in a different planet. you only have freedom of speech when your speech is irrelevant or when it doesn't conflict with the views of the elites.
Let's put freedom of speech to a test. If you're in Germany, go on X, go to the profile of chancellor Friedrich Merz and call him a "corrupt politician and traitor of the people" and also say how a certain group of illegal immigrants responsible for majority of terror attacks doesn't belong in Germany. Then let's see how far your freedom of speech goes in Germany. Post a link here with the comment as proof when you're done. Otherwise, please refrain from criticizing other nations speech laws since you're throwing rocks at a stone castle from a glass house.
My point with this is there's no perfect freedom of speech, but myself I'd much rather the unrestricted freedom of speech of the world's oldest democracy, rather than the government controlled speech of Germany or the UK.
the law the students broke was "writing an oped in the college paper", this is just pure bullshit.
Still no source provided. You also mentioned government killings. Where's the source for that?
I'll end the conversation here since I've had enough.
I'll end the conversation here since I've had enough.
Disagree, freedom of speech is a natural right.
Yes, I am saying that platforms should be policed to such an extent that they remove and ban all illegal content within a reasonable timeframe. And in the case of something like child porn, knowingly failing to do so quickly should lead to a lot of people going to jail (I think a lot of tech executives and employees belong in jail).
I don't find this to be too much to ask. Every other platform has to do this. The only reason you have a bunch of ridiculously wealthy anti-social people rampaging across the world "disrupting" whatever they see fit is because we decided the rules arbitrarily should't apply to them because of some wide eyed and ridiculous utopian bullshit how "the internet is for free love and knowledge mannnn, and it should be like, freeee brooo". I'm not even slightly sympathetic to that argument and I don't think the Internet has proven to be valuable enough either culturally or productivity wise to justify even the slightest loosening of the rules that apply elsewhere. The whole thing starts to look like a rent seeking scam that was used to destroy a lot of higher quality information resources and businesses if you squint at it for even a second.
I don't find this to be too much to ask. Every other platform has to do this. The only reason you have a bunch of ridiculously wealthy anti-social people rampaging across the world "disrupting" whatever they see fit is because we decided the rules arbitrarily should't apply to them because of some wide eyed and ridiculous utopian bullshit how "the internet is for free love and knowledge mannnn, and it should be like, freeee brooo". I'm not even slightly sympathetic to that argument and I don't think the Internet has proven to be valuable enough either culturally or productivity wise to justify even the slightest loosening of the rules that apply elsewhere. The whole thing starts to look like a rent seeking scam that was used to destroy a lot of higher quality information resources and businesses if you squint at it for even a second.
Heh, good. "Social media" has always been worse than just running a personal website. Especially now that most social media platforms are walling themselves off from the rest of the web.
Who decides what you are allowed to say or see?
They already have their finger on the scale with this due to their algorithms. They're pushing these posts to people, not just letting people see posts from communities they have chosen to join. To me the algorithmic nature of post visibility is what muddies the water here and puts them in the place of promoter of speech vs. neutral platform for speech.
No, I don't have a proposal or solution, I'm ultimately out of my depth here. But I do think it's a little more complex than it is sometimes made out to be.
No, I don't have a proposal or solution, I'm ultimately out of my depth here. But I do think it's a little more complex than it is sometimes made out to be.
You are confusing "being liable" with censorship.
They're not the same thing, if you care to know.
The first is about accountability, about being responsible for the consequences of one's acts.
The second is preemptive coercion and is indeed a tyrant's basic tool.
They're not the same thing, if you care to know.
The first is about accountability, about being responsible for the consequences of one's acts.
The second is preemptive coercion and is indeed a tyrant's basic tool.
Who decides which actions have said consequences for which someone is liable?
Any after the fact investigation and due process in courts of law. It will depend on the specifics of each case: libel, incitement to violence, etc.
That's how it works for books, magazines, newspapers. That's why they have legal advisors to define the boundaries of what and how they can publish.
That's how it works for books, magazines, newspapers. That's why they have legal advisors to define the boundaries of what and how they can publish.
> Any after the fact investigation and due process in courts of law.
The supreme court has decided that the court order requirement for removing content is unconstitutional.
There is no "after the fact investigation and due process" anymore. Platforms are now expected to police themselves or face arbitrary fines.
The supreme court has decided that the court order requirement for removing content is unconstitutional.
There is no "after the fact investigation and due process" anymore. Platforms are now expected to police themselves or face arbitrary fines.
It's usually the people you voted for, middle level managers in California, terminally online nerds who moderate communities, angry stalkers and algorithms.
The current government in power who would prefer that they stay in power forever.
Well, if social media can profit from user content it should be liable too right?
Thanks god.
Finally! I've been yelling at the clouds for years now how it made zero sense to apply “hosting services” rules for social media when they haven't been doing mere content hosting for years: with their algorithmic feeds curating what everyone is viewing they are literally acting as content editors, and as such it made no sense to me that they didn't have the same obligations as any other other editors out there.
In fact, because of them the regulation on mere hosting services have increased sharply for no reasons, just because the regulators wanted to have more control on social medias.
In fact, because of them the regulation on mere hosting services have increased sharply for no reasons, just because the regulators wanted to have more control on social medias.
Good! We need to go further in this direction.
If magazines, newspapers, movies and TV stations are liable for what they publish why shouldn't social media also be?
The "but it is only transportation of information, like telephones" argument is just ridiculous. It is valid for email at best, it is not valid for social media. They already routinely practice filtering of what is posted.
We shouldn't expect the U.S. to advance this cause. Their congress is too deep in the pockets of lobbyists to be accountable to public interest. It has to come from the E.U. and responsible governments.
Edit: this is a repetition of history. There are a lot of tragic examples of tragedies sparked by publications meant to extract profits from people's paranoia and fear. The most famous one is the witch hunt started by the book Malleus Maleficarum[1] that caused more than 30 000 deaths. We created means to contain these abuses in new media too. The genocide of Rohingya people could have been avoided if Facebook were liable for it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum
If magazines, newspapers, movies and TV stations are liable for what they publish why shouldn't social media also be?
The "but it is only transportation of information, like telephones" argument is just ridiculous. It is valid for email at best, it is not valid for social media. They already routinely practice filtering of what is posted.
We shouldn't expect the U.S. to advance this cause. Their congress is too deep in the pockets of lobbyists to be accountable to public interest. It has to come from the E.U. and responsible governments.
Edit: this is a repetition of history. There are a lot of tragic examples of tragedies sparked by publications meant to extract profits from people's paranoia and fear. The most famous one is the witch hunt started by the book Malleus Maleficarum[1] that caused more than 30 000 deaths. We created means to contain these abuses in new media too. The genocide of Rohingya people could have been avoided if Facebook were liable for it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum
Yours is an argument to entirely wipe away user content and corporatize the whole of the Internet, a return to the days of TV and Radio. Where, in your world, could citizens find a platform willing to allow them to share their opinions, creations, and find the like-minded?
Wow! Did you really read all of that in my comment?
I'd like to know where did I say that, because I can't find it.
I'd like to know where did I say that, because I can't find it.
Your position is clear: if responsible governments (lol) punish platforms for what commoners post on them, platforms wishing to survive will, sensibly, not allow commoners to post. Moderation is not enough, as unapproved things will always make it through the cracks.
The deep distrust of unmoderated, un-nannied communication is also apparent:
>The "but it is only transportation of information, like telephones"
>argument is just ridiculous. It is valid for email at best,
>it is not valid for social media. They already routinely practice
>filtering of what is posted.
The at best you use to describe the freedom of communication in email shows that your position has no bottom: everything and anything the masses express, even in private communications, must be policed. You also do not understand that freedom of speech in the US is not moderated or regulated by the government, and is something enjoyed by the people, not just interest or power groups, which adds to the authoritarian vibe of your post.
The deep distrust of unmoderated, un-nannied communication is also apparent:
>The "but it is only transportation of information, like telephones"
>argument is just ridiculous. It is valid for email at best,
>it is not valid for social media. They already routinely practice
>filtering of what is posted.
The at best you use to describe the freedom of communication in email shows that your position has no bottom: everything and anything the masses express, even in private communications, must be policed. You also do not understand that freedom of speech in the US is not moderated or regulated by the government, and is something enjoyed by the people, not just interest or power groups, which adds to the authoritarian vibe of your post.
It is the end result if you expect the same level of liability as a newspaper or magazine. Every single thing you see in one of those was deliberately put there by a person (well... at least it used to be). If an agent of the print publication deliberately put something in the publication, then the liability falls on the publication and/or that person.
Social media is not the same. The content being posted is not vetted by any agent of the platform, so the liability at least in part falls of the person who posted it. You could argue that the platform should share some liability that is waved as long as they at least try "hard enough" to police their platform, with whatever definition of "hard enough" is chosen. But no automated filter will be perfect, so if you demand the same level of liability as a print publication you are effectively outlawing social media entirely.
Social media is not the same. The content being posted is not vetted by any agent of the platform, so the liability at least in part falls of the person who posted it. You could argue that the platform should share some liability that is waved as long as they at least try "hard enough" to police their platform, with whatever definition of "hard enough" is chosen. But no automated filter will be perfect, so if you demand the same level of liability as a print publication you are effectively outlawing social media entirely.
Personally I think that social media companies should be at least in part liable for content posted by their users. There is a tendency to treat social media as a mere conduit, like the post office, that should not be responsible for content but the post office doesn't decide who sees what or profits from advertising inserted into mail.
I thought about this a few months ago and came up with this <strike>rant</strike>completely reasonable proposal[0] that tries to balance internet freedom with assigning limited responsibility for user content published by web sites.
Summary: under some conditions based on the number of views, whether any money changed hands, and whether the post was widely shared or mostly private, a publisher should be liable for some of the damages caused by a post.
[0] https://sheep.horse/2025/3/section_230_and_internet_freedom%...
I thought about this a few months ago and came up with this <strike>rant</strike>completely reasonable proposal[0] that tries to balance internet freedom with assigning limited responsibility for user content published by web sites.
Summary: under some conditions based on the number of views, whether any money changed hands, and whether the post was widely shared or mostly private, a publisher should be liable for some of the damages caused by a post.
[0] https://sheep.horse/2025/3/section_230_and_internet_freedom%...
I think it’s easy to implement this, but the flip side of making platforms responsible is that they become much more restrictive in what’s allowed to be discussed. They start banning topics preemptively, just to limit their exposure. And if you’re thinking “good”, it will make the public discourse sterile.
Then the same companies will be penalised in other jurisdictions for being overly censorious. There’s no way to simultaneously follow all the rules.
And if you’re thinking “good, I just want to see those companies fined”, that’s fine too. But then that’s just about feeling good, rather than setting good rules for discourse.
Then the same companies will be penalised in other jurisdictions for being overly censorious. There’s no way to simultaneously follow all the rules.
And if you’re thinking “good, I just want to see those companies fined”, that’s fine too. But then that’s just about feeling good, rather than setting good rules for discourse.
> if you’re thinking “good”, it will make the public discourse sterile
Maybe those topics shouldn't be discussed on general-purpose online forums?
Maybe those topics shouldn't be discussed on general-purpose online forums?
Even today YouTubers and TikTokers go out of their way not to use certain words that lead to being demonetised or having their reach limited. They use euphemisms like unalive or grape instead of suicide and rape. These are terrible things which we'd like to see less of, but we can't discuss how to make things better without discussing them at all.
If we force videos to avoid mentioning that could offend anyone anywhere, we're not going to be able to discuss very much at all.
If we force videos to avoid mentioning that could offend anyone anywhere, we're not going to be able to discuss very much at all.
> YouTubers and TikTokers go out of their way not to use certain words that lead to being demonetised or having their reach limited. They use euphemisms like unalive or grape instead of suicide and rape.
I'm with you on finding this personally annoying. But the question is whether a dedicated forum for discussing suicide or rape, one where the incentives of an unqualified influencer paid by views and product endorsements are better considered, is superior for these matters.
We don't, by analogy, randomly launch into suicide and rape in the middle of a cocktail party. Instead, we naturally seclude ourselves with the people we want to discuss it with, people we tend to have chosen thoughtfully, and usually with some warning that what we want to discuss is weighty. Not doing any of that online strikes me as, if not a problem, a legitimate concern.
I'm with you on finding this personally annoying. But the question is whether a dedicated forum for discussing suicide or rape, one where the incentives of an unqualified influencer paid by views and product endorsements are better considered, is superior for these matters.
We don't, by analogy, randomly launch into suicide and rape in the middle of a cocktail party. Instead, we naturally seclude ourselves with the people we want to discuss it with, people we tend to have chosen thoughtfully, and usually with some warning that what we want to discuss is weighty. Not doing any of that online strikes me as, if not a problem, a legitimate concern.
Who is going to join a forum dedicated to discussing rape? Absolute weirdos, that's who. But you're not going to enact any kind of broad societal change by talking only to those weirdos. You need to reach a broad audience and convince them this is a problem worth tackling.
> Who is going to join a forum dedicated to discussing rape? Absolute weirdos
The folks who go to these [1] and these [2].
We are way into that at least I am not knowledgeable about. I’d be curious about an expert’s take on the value of unmoderated YouTube and TikTok content on this issue.
[1] https://www.nationalsexualassaultconference.org/
[2] https://www.survivorsofsexualassaultanonymous.com/
The folks who go to these [1] and these [2].
We are way into that at least I am not knowledgeable about. I’d be curious about an expert’s take on the value of unmoderated YouTube and TikTok content on this issue.
[1] https://www.nationalsexualassaultconference.org/
[2] https://www.survivorsofsexualassaultanonymous.com/
These guys are fine, but they can’t drive broader societal change if the words “sexual assault” or “rape” is scrubbed from mainstream discourse. Imagine if HN autodeleted any comment with these words, we couldn’t even have this conversation.
We have the postal system and telephone system, which are in theory (and I think most of us believe) content-neutral. You can say whatever you want over these channels, and, as far as we know, the USPS and phone company don't investigate the content and block naughty thoughts, nor are they held liable if we say naughty things or conspire to commit a crime over their channels.
Newspapers, magazines, and TV are at the other end: If they publish naughty stuff, they're going to be held accountable, and therefore they exercise editorial moderation and selection over what they publish.
Social Media and Internet forums are in this weird separate bucket that was simply conjured up by Section 230. They get to have their cake and eat it too. They can both 1. editorialize and moderate their users' content but 2. dodge liability over what they publish. What a great deal!
I think whether you are liable for what your users post -should- come down to whether or not you editorialize and put your thumb on the scale of what gets posted and shown. If you're truly a "dumb pipe" that allows everything, then you should not be liable for what your users send over the dumb pipe. But the minute you exercise any moderation or curation, you are effectively endorsing what you are publishing, and should share liability over it.
Newspapers, magazines, and TV are at the other end: If they publish naughty stuff, they're going to be held accountable, and therefore they exercise editorial moderation and selection over what they publish.
Social Media and Internet forums are in this weird separate bucket that was simply conjured up by Section 230. They get to have their cake and eat it too. They can both 1. editorialize and moderate their users' content but 2. dodge liability over what they publish. What a great deal!
I think whether you are liable for what your users post -should- come down to whether or not you editorialize and put your thumb on the scale of what gets posted and shown. If you're truly a "dumb pipe" that allows everything, then you should not be liable for what your users send over the dumb pipe. But the minute you exercise any moderation or curation, you are effectively endorsing what you are publishing, and should share liability over it.
The USPS does investigate content.
You can draw a swastika and a machinegun for sale on your regular mail envelope and it will show up in informed delivery, but as black and white.
If you try to get it displayed more prominently in an advertising campaign, it violates their second set of 'guidelines' that stop what you can put in the more prominent colored advertising image.
They use this mechanism in a matter different than most social media curation, but it's still a form of curation, and favoring the particular kinds of speech they like, using two different sets of guidelines -- one guideline for de minimis B&W presentation and a second set of 'guidelines' (which even at USPS are a bit vague) about whether you can get the pretty color image in informed delivery.
You can draw a swastika and a machinegun for sale on your regular mail envelope and it will show up in informed delivery, but as black and white.
If you try to get it displayed more prominently in an advertising campaign, it violates their second set of 'guidelines' that stop what you can put in the more prominent colored advertising image.
They use this mechanism in a matter different than most social media curation, but it's still a form of curation, and favoring the particular kinds of speech they like, using two different sets of guidelines -- one guideline for de minimis B&W presentation and a second set of 'guidelines' (which even at USPS are a bit vague) about whether you can get the pretty color image in informed delivery.
Surely this curation by the USPS doesn't extend to content inside of envelopes, though! I guess my overall point is that Social Media and forums are "opening the envelope" and making moderation decisions based on what they find inside.
The problem is, if everything has to be reviewed, almost nothing will be posted. Why? Because the social media companies don't make enough off of each post to hire that many people.
(Do I trust AI to do a first-pass review? No, I don't.)
You can reduce that to some degree by putting a threshold of number of views. But that just moves the problem. Then you won't have many posts that exceed the threshold. (Though it reduces the problem somewhat, because social media posts that exceed the threshold will be the one that they make the most money from.)
But the worse problem is, who decides what's "damaging"? The politicians do. That means that posts that are damaging to the politicians are going to be among the first things removed. That makes this a very dangerous path.
(Do I trust AI to do a first-pass review? No, I don't.)
You can reduce that to some degree by putting a threshold of number of views. But that just moves the problem. Then you won't have many posts that exceed the threshold. (Though it reduces the problem somewhat, because social media posts that exceed the threshold will be the one that they make the most money from.)
But the worse problem is, who decides what's "damaging"? The politicians do. That means that posts that are damaging to the politicians are going to be among the first things removed. That makes this a very dangerous path.
> But the worse problem is, who decides what's "damaging"? The politicians do.
It is the courts that decide damages.
My argument in the post is that it is really only the widely distributed "viral" posts that cause enough damage to for liability to be an issue. Since the social media companies have a lot of say in what goes viral and closely monitor popularity for advertising reasons, they are in a position to fix the problem and a liable if they do not.
They don't even have to remove posts - just stop pushing them.
It is the courts that decide damages.
My argument in the post is that it is really only the widely distributed "viral" posts that cause enough damage to for liability to be an issue. Since the social media companies have a lot of say in what goes viral and closely monitor popularity for advertising reasons, they are in a position to fix the problem and a liable if they do not.
They don't even have to remove posts - just stop pushing them.
USPS profits from advertising inserted into mail. https://www.usps.com/business/every-door-direct-mail.htm
Sorry, I was imprecise with my comparison. A better analogy would be that the USPS doesn't scan your post to figure out which pieces of mail you are likely to actually look at and then affix stickers to those letters advertising related products.
USPS scans your mails and then includes advertising with this scans when you get the feed in informed delivery.
Yes, but the advertising images are directly related (a T-mobile mailpiece gets a T-mobile png)
I'm definitely not saying it's the same as facebook, but it's an example of content curation based on 3rd party input. Selective advertising reaches a place of prominence, ty6853 doesn't get a special image when I send a letter to Santa.
No, it's buying a service. They aren't curating, they're taking anyones money and sending anything that fits in their guidelines. There's nothing stopping you from displaying your image to a bunch of people.
https://www.usps.com/business/informed-delivery.htm
The image that goes with the mail is required even.
https://www.usps.com/business/informed-delivery.htm
The image that goes with the mail is required even.
Yes it's all very different when you use different rhetoric, right?
"Buying a service" is how advertisers get placement of certain content curated.
If it fits in the guidelines, you get the special placement and image, if it doesn't fit the special guidelines, you can draw it on your mails and it gets scanned and all they see is the scan. I can draw a swastika on the front of my envelope and it will show up on the feed (but only in black and white), but can I get the swastika on the advertisement image in color? IDK because the link you sent was literally just tossing back what I already mentioned which is informed delivery, not a link to their policies (the policies themselves are a bit vague, but under them it appears not, and they definitely have stronger 'guidelines' than the black and white for instance regarding weapons).
If your content on Facebook 'fits the guidelines' and the guys 'buying the service' benefit from it, then it gets curated more strongly. If it fits other less strict guidelines, I can still see it. But there's nothing stopping you from paying facebook lots of money and getting something that fits their guidelines displayed more prominently, so that wouldn't be curation!
Your argument is highly specious. "Buying a service" is a total red herring, and "guidelines" is just a hack here so you can pivot around it's a mechanism by which the curation happens.
As for the image, you claim it's required, but my mails don't get it, it appears to be 'required' as part of a particular 'campaign'. I have no trouble believing that some services might require an image, but this doesn't somehow disprove curation.
"Buying a service" is how advertisers get placement of certain content curated.
If it fits in the guidelines, you get the special placement and image, if it doesn't fit the special guidelines, you can draw it on your mails and it gets scanned and all they see is the scan. I can draw a swastika on the front of my envelope and it will show up on the feed (but only in black and white), but can I get the swastika on the advertisement image in color? IDK because the link you sent was literally just tossing back what I already mentioned which is informed delivery, not a link to their policies (the policies themselves are a bit vague, but under them it appears not, and they definitely have stronger 'guidelines' than the black and white for instance regarding weapons).
If your content on Facebook 'fits the guidelines' and the guys 'buying the service' benefit from it, then it gets curated more strongly. If it fits other less strict guidelines, I can still see it. But there's nothing stopping you from paying facebook lots of money and getting something that fits their guidelines displayed more prominently, so that wouldn't be curation!
Your argument is highly specious. "Buying a service" is a total red herring, and "guidelines" is just a hack here so you can pivot around it's a mechanism by which the curation happens.
As for the image, you claim it's required, but my mails don't get it, it appears to be 'required' as part of a particular 'campaign'. I have no trouble believing that some services might require an image, but this doesn't somehow disprove curation.
Sure, but it's the same business model for everyone. Give USPS money, get it delivered to a door.
Social media companies are actively curating what you see, or don't see which is the stem of all their problems.
Social media companies are actively curating what you see, or don't see which is the stem of all their problems.
Because they were forced to be unreasonably profitable for a public service.
> There is a tendency to treat social media as a mere conduit, like the post office
I don't think anyone thinks of them like a government service (post office). Rather, when they talk about social media being a conduit/provider, what they have in mind is a variation on a search engine.
Do you think search engines should be liable for content? That's a slippery slope.
A stronger argument is that they are claiming to be like a search engine, but actually being nothing of the sort. So they should have a choice - make all algorithmic content opt in, with tunable, open algorithms, or be made liable for what the algorithm shows to users.
I don't think anyone thinks of them like a government service (post office). Rather, when they talk about social media being a conduit/provider, what they have in mind is a variation on a search engine.
Do you think search engines should be liable for content? That's a slippery slope.
A stronger argument is that they are claiming to be like a search engine, but actually being nothing of the sort. So they should have a choice - make all algorithmic content opt in, with tunable, open algorithms, or be made liable for what the algorithm shows to users.
Social Media is more like the old newspaper "Letters To The Editor" than it is like the post office or phone system. On social media, you send your "post" to the S.M. company, the company reads it and decides whether or not to accept that "post" and then some time later, they publish it to the site's readers. The review process is done by a computer instead of an Editor, and takes no time at all (measured in milliseconds) but that's what's happening under the hood. They are absolutely curating and deciding what to display and what not to.
They should be liable for manipulating the feed. Show everything the person is following and nothing else, and show it in chronological order.
I suppose the primary issue is lack of moderation on these platforms. I always contend that, if you don’t say certain things to a person face to face, you should have the decorum and decency to not do that in digital space.
And to that extent, social media platforms need to step up maintaining civility within their community.
The primary issue mentioned in the article is illegal content. That certainly requires high level of moderation.
Brazilian courts have the intent correct to hold social media platforms responsible if they don’t moderate. However, who knows how the execution of this judgement will look like.
And to that extent, social media platforms need to step up maintaining civility within their community.
The primary issue mentioned in the article is illegal content. That certainly requires high level of moderation.
Brazilian courts have the intent correct to hold social media platforms responsible if they don’t moderate. However, who knows how the execution of this judgement will look like.
> And to that extent, social media platforms need to step up maintaining civility within their community.
This is always the line that will be crossed though, there are some comedians who I find in bad taste, but I'm not going to tell them they can't make their jokes. There will be those who feel entitled to 'moderate' what their beliefs and preferences dictate.
It might be done better, but then the same people will complain that social media is stifling free speech when their own narratives were found to be blocked.
But lets see how it plays out. I don't see why anyone would even attempt to create a social aspect to their services in Brazil with this hanging over their head though.
This is always the line that will be crossed though, there are some comedians who I find in bad taste, but I'm not going to tell them they can't make their jokes. There will be those who feel entitled to 'moderate' what their beliefs and preferences dictate.
It might be done better, but then the same people will complain that social media is stifling free speech when their own narratives were found to be blocked.
But lets see how it plays out. I don't see why anyone would even attempt to create a social aspect to their services in Brazil with this hanging over their head though.
> There will be those who feel entitled to 'moderate' what their beliefs and preferences dictate.
I don’t think it is a question of entitlement. Just because you have a mic and want to go on a racist rant about other cultures, I don’t think this should be protected by free speech.
Similarly, the core issue from the article is stated as illegal content. One can only imagine why social media platforms don’t want to take action on that.
I don’t think it is a question of entitlement. Just because you have a mic and want to go on a racist rant about other cultures, I don’t think this should be protected by free speech.
Similarly, the core issue from the article is stated as illegal content. One can only imagine why social media platforms don’t want to take action on that.
>Just because you have a mic and want to go on a racist rant about other cultures, I don’t think this should be protected by free speech.
You're essentially making the claim that somebody shouldn't be able to say something that offends some people even if it's true, which is a great way to shut down discourse and enforce the status quo, because there's no limit to what people can claim to be offended by.
You're essentially making the claim that somebody shouldn't be able to say something that offends some people even if it's true, which is a great way to shut down discourse and enforce the status quo, because there's no limit to what people can claim to be offended by.
That’s a very narrow minded way to look at this.
If your intention is to hurt or humiliate someone, or make jokes at the expense of others, then yes, you should not be allowed to voice or participate in such discussions.
If your intention is to hurt or humiliate someone, or make jokes at the expense of others, then yes, you should not be allowed to voice or participate in such discussions.
My opinion might be different to yours, we should be free to discuss it without the fear of not aligning. You know how this plays out.
Even on this platform there is some level of moderation. There is a basic expectation of people being kind to each other.
One can freely discuss whatever they want, but that should not mean not maintaining decency during discussions.
One can freely discuss whatever they want, but that should not mean not maintaining decency during discussions.
> I don't see why anyone would even attempt to create a social aspect to their services in Brazil
Maybe that's a good thing.
Maybe that's a good thing.
> who knows how the execution of this judgement will look like
Persecution of political enemies, of course.
Persecution of political enemies, of course.
Tell me a country where this does not happen.
Perhaps it happens in every country. Still, laws that make it easier to do are a bad thing.
We can expect that social media companies will lobby against this. In Brazil they find allies in the far-right which are also interested in moderation-free social media. For instance, two weeks ago Meta and Google sponsored an event from Bolsonaro's PL party about social media and AI, including lectures to train party members into how to effectively employ social media and AI tools. https://oglobo.globo.com/politica/noticia/2025/05/21/pl-anun...