Hacker News Reader

Comment by hgsgm | Hacker News Reader

That's not true. Section 230 is based on a principle that someone is responsible for the content a post, and creators and publishers don't get to both deflect responsibility to the other.

Next, YC would be the relevant entity, not dang personally. (But that's a minor point because dang is part of YC. )

The difference between you and YC is that YC actually collects posts and re- publishes them.

Users simply tell YC if they like a post or not. They don't transmit the post content to anyone.

YC decides whether to grey a post or remove it, or keep it. Showing a post higher or lower on a page doesn't mean anything related to whether the post violates some law and someone needs to be held responsible.

Reddit mods are closer, since they have specific power to ban a post or poster.

View on HN

> Section 230 is based on a principle that someone is responsible for the content a post

No, its not. Law predating section 230 is based on the principal that lots of people can be responsible for published content.

Section 230 is based on the conclusion that certain of those rules making people liable are inappropriate in the online context; particularly those that would give any active moderators of content liability as publishers, which does not depend on actual knowledge of the illegality of any content. These rules were being applied to both sites and users other than the creator when section 230 was adopted, which is why it explicilty protects both operators and users.

Section 230 doesn't he impact the liability of creators at all

From the article, what Reddit is arguing:

> “Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act famously protects Internet platforms from liability, yet what’s missing from the discussion is that it crucially protects Internet users—everyday people—when they participate in moderation like removing unwanted content from their communities, or users upvoting and downvoting posts,” a Reddit spokesperson told Ars.

Reddit is afraid they'll be held responsible for the actions of moderators they have no control over. Their business model is at risk so they're spinning it as something that threatens their users.

Reddit has exactly as much control over moderators as their own policies dictate, which they can change at any time.

Honestly that sounds like fear-mongering, Reddit wants to protect its interests by turning the public against section 230 reform.

Perhaps Section 230 shouldn't extend to sites with anonymity. If somebody is harmed then somebody should be liable.

An issue is you have anons causing harm to users who cannot be sued and the platform also cannot be sued. No good.

> Perhaps Section 230 shouldn’t extend to sites with anonymity. If somebody is harmed then somebody should be liable.

The creator is liable even if they are anonymous.

There is a difference between someone being liable and it being easy to identify who they are. (And, even if the site owner isn’t liable, a John Doe suit against the anonymous user can be a framework within which to subpoena the site owner for records which help to identify the liable user.)

I don't like that. If the user cannot be held liable for whatever reason it needs to fall on the site. I don't like that people can be harmed without recourse. There is little incentive for the site to run communities that aren't toxic.

There's little incentive for good moderation, and there's little cost for any moderation, which makes sites business models work.

I agree with you that it has gaps and ugly side effects, but it also has the effect that a lot of things are working because you're not by default responsible for them because they've been commented on your server.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com