Those Who Don't Understand Section 230 Are Doomed to Repeal It | Hacker News Reader

Those Who Don't Understand Section 230 Are Doomed to Repeal It

techdirt.com

22 pointsradmuzom15 comments

In my mind, arguments like this are insignificant at best, and quite possibly harmful. At different times and for different reasons, both Democrats and Republicans have expressed dismay for Section 230 and a desire to get rid of it. The likelihood of Section 230 being in place in its current form 10 years from now seems awfully low.

Our best hope is to discuss ways to improve, narrow, clarify, etc in such a way that we maintain the protections we care most about. If we continue to advocate for no change whatsoever, we risk losing it all.

To me, the best way forward is to revisit the point at which you cease to be a protected service provider and instead become an unprotected publisher. The Facebooks and TikToks of the world act an awful lot like publishers. Treat them like it.

> To me, the best way forward is to revisit the point at which you cease to be a protected service provider and instead become an unprotected publisher. The Facebooks and TikToks of the world act an awful lot like publishers. Treat them like it.

So do you think it would be better if Facebook didn't do any moderation at all?

They would still be publishers. Just (more) irresponsible publishers.

I think the deciding factor should be business model. If you charge for access or place advertising beside the content, you are its publisher.

Is your ISP a publisher then? They charge for access to the content which is on the internet and provide it to you. So should they be scanning every packet to ensure it doesn't contain any defamatory content?

Perhaps limiting their moderation to removing entries which are actually illegal.

Yes if section 230 was repealed then removing illegal content which they have been notified of would still be required. But doing active moderation for illegal content or otherwise would make them a publisher and so they couldn't engage in such behavior without risking liability. This is exactly why 230 was created, early internet services were being sued because they attempted to actively moderate their content.

>So do you think it would be better if Facebook didn't do any moderation at all?

1) Holy strawman batman

2) If they were unmoderated or lightly moderated cesspits of degeneracy then maybe their ability to pick sides on a whim wouldn't matter. Nobody cares if 4Chan bans something or cancels someone because nobody takes platforms like that seriously in the first place.

> So do you think it would be better if Facebook didn't do any moderation at all?

I think the GP was referring to the status before Section 230, which was exactly why Section 230 was passed in the first place.

The internet is a very different place now, but repealing Section 230 is likely to have a host of unintended, mostly bad consequences (while doing very little to rein in FB/GOOG et al).

I don't really have much of an opinion on their moderation.

My opinion is in regards to the other parts. When you submit some sort of content, they are analyzing it in every possible way. When you log in and view content, they are deciding what to show you and that includes showing you content that you didn't ask for as well as not showing you content you did ask for. This is all done to maximize revenue. And that's fine, they can do whatever they want (including their moderation practices).

I think that they've made the decision to be in the publishing business. That's all.

> When you log in and view content, they are deciding what to show you and that includes showing you content that you didn't ask for as well as not showing you content you did ask for.

Do you think google should also be held liable for showing you search results which include defamatory web sites?

Google does stack results. The(my) issue is when entities select what is displayed or even hosted. Defining the line isn't easy because things like ranking are involved. While ranking can be a benefit to the users, it is also used as a shield by entities that want to keep their 230 protections.

I don't care that defamatory or inflammatory items are in given lists, I care that I'm being given the full list. If the list is intentionally being curated beyond what the user requested, safe search and such, then 230 protection is gone.

I don't agree with either of you.

Google gives you links to other sites, which may or may not be publishers. Section 230 is meaningless in this regard. They don't need it.

You have no right to be "given the full list" by anyone. Why do people keep demanding this? Make your own service and quit complaining.

Some sites allow users to post content for other users to see. Section 230 allows them to filter and moderate without liability, and it allows them to make mistakes without liability too.

A publisher is choosing what a user sees on their site in a manner that is different than filtering and moderation. What's different about it? Well, that's what needs to be clarified. I contend that most of the big sites are clearly publishers while enjoying Section 230 protections. They don't deserve it, and if we let them keep doing this, sites that do deserve protection are likely to lose it.

230 is mostly fine. I would add a KYC type of clause to it though. Basically if you can identify the speaker of a piece of content, then they are responsible, otherwise the online platform is responsible.

Along with that, the DSA would need to be tasked with creating a strong id system for for companies to integrate with to make it easy for a service platform to identify their users if they want to

High level, I think it makes sense that platforms either ensure they know who is using their services or they pre-screen what they publish.

>I would add a KYC type of clause to it though. Basically if you can identify the speaker of a piece of content, then they are responsible, otherwise the online platform is responsible.

The last thing internet platforms need is more incentives to invade users' privacy.

All this talk of changing S.230 and yet nobody has legally tested what the current situation is with regards to algorithmic editorialization. If Bob posts something that mechanically goes to all his friends, then S.230 straightforwardly applies. But if Bob posts something that is merely feedstock for Faceboot (etc) to possibly decide to pass on to some of his friends, then it seems that the middleman has a large part in the speech. You can't join in with someone singing a song, and then disclaim responsibility for its contents.

If Mary's friends all post a bunch of Covid denialism, and Mary gets sick and dies, it's the same situation as if they had called her up and spoke to her directly. If a small portion of Mary's friends post Covid denialism, and then Faceboot determines that Mary is susceptible to the narratives of Covid denialism and will "engage" more with their site if they repeat these messages to her, then Faceboot is directly responsible when Mary gets sick and dies.

I think that is close to the limits of what is possible to do with respect to the first amendment, and possibly close to the current legal situation depending on how a lawsuit with such theories fared.

The only plausible approach I've seen to breaking up the power of Big Tech is through a US GDPR and mandating open interoperability APIs. The data protection is so that individuals can choose not to be subjects of these companies, and the open APIs are so that companies have to compete for business rather than coasting on Metcalfe's law. Every other proposal I've seen is basically a way for the government to control Big Tech's power for its own ends, rather than dispersing it so that such concentrated power doesn't exist in the first place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com