12 ms·

> The immunity must be limited to sites that are neutral, in the same way that non-political religious organizations are tax-exempt. Why? Because to claim that

> The immunity must be limited to sites that are neutral, in the same way that non-political religious organizations are tax-exempt. Why? Because to claim that a site isn't responsible for a user's content is fine, until the site starts editing, censoring or weighting certain points of view. When the site loses its neutrality it ceases to be a conduit of content and instead becomes content. Indemnification from liability for a specific point-of-view is, I feel, an abridgment of free speech and I believe it is unconstitutional. 1) Yeah that works great until someone uploads content about children being sexually abused and you can't take it down because taking it down is a non-neutral action (censorship). 2) Same, but non-consensual pornography of someone's ex. 3) Same, but advocating a clear and immediate desire to commit violence. 4) Same, but "fighting words" (a well known exemption when said to someone's face to free speech protections). 5) Same, but obscenity. There are some very, very massive flaws of that nature with your position and I'd continue but I think you are getting the idea. Such things don't only impact the speaker and therefore create a situation where the provider should (in theory) censor them. Similarly, such things have been ruled to be outside of the bounds of "free speech" in the US by the judicial system.

waqf 10y ago
Would you also hold the post office responsible if they delivered such material? Or the telephone company?
- fictioncircle 10y ago
  We aren't discussing one-time delivery but an ongoing availability as it is present on the website and would be delivered for weeks/months before a court order to take it down was received. This is more akin to a broadcast where someone picks the channel (url) than the example you provided. That isn't the same thing as a sealed point-to-point non-public delivery of a message and to imply it is equal and equivalent is disingenuous.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - michaelmrose 10y ago
    There was at one point a tiny number of very expensive to run networks which could reasonably be supposed to bear the small cost of putting its money where its mouth was every time they showed someone on the tv. Your concept would in fact basically either go laughably unenforced or destroy many to many communication on the internet as we know it as there would be no large channels for distributing any information of any sort as showing anything that couldn't be shown on nickalodeon would be an unacceptable risk in a world where most communication has few viewers and earns no/little money. Once again I am at a loss to understand what is so bad about the way things are that this seems like a good solution.
    - fictioncircle 10y ago
      I'm pretty sure you completely misunderstood what I said given I was replying to a chain of comments like this one: > > The immunity must be limited to sites that are neutral, in the same way that non-political religious organizations are tax-exempt. Why? Because to claim that a site isn't responsible for a user's content is fine, until the site starts editing, censoring or weighting certain points of view. When the site loses its neutrality it ceases to be a conduit of content and instead becomes content. Indemnification from liability for a specific point-of-view is, I feel, an abridgment of free speech and I believe it is unconstitutional.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
Liability is not the same thing as a court order. If you sue someone for libel and win, and the libel is hosted on YouTube, YouTube can't say "nope, Section 230" and keep hosting it. The court can order them to take it down. YouTube just doesn't owe you any damages, you have to take that up with the user. > Indemnification from liability for a specific point-of-view is, I feel, an abridgment of free speech and I believe it is unconstitutional. That would be the case if the government was deciding who could be indemnified based on content, but that isn't what's going on. Consider what you would be doing to search engines. Their entire purpose is to sort content by relevance. There is no opinion-free way to do that, otherwise every search engine would have exactly the same results. You want to impose liability on Google and Bing because they index the whole internet and the internet has bad stuff on it?
- ebcode 10y ago
  > You want to impose liability on Google and Bing because they index the whole internet and the internet has bad stuff on it? Yes. If you found some, i don't know, child pornography, say, lying in the street, then went around showing it to people saying, "hey, look what I found", that would be considered illegal/repugnant/stupid, right? Why should that same action analogized to the digital domain be any less illegal/repugnant/stupid? I don't think it is.
  - michaelmrose 10y ago
    Analogies are often useful tools to explicate things by relating them to already understood concepts but utterly useless to make useful proofs or arguments because it oversimplifies to the point of uselessness and misses the ways things differ. These arguments via analogy are so worthless, so without substance that it is usually a massive waste of time to try to explain to the originator the ways in which the analogy differs from reality so I will simply ask you to come back with an argument based on reality instead.
alexbecker 10y ago
Note sure how an internet service provider could be responsible for "fighting words"--that's a very, very narrow doctrine essentially constrained to yelling something in someone's face that immediately gets you punched.

waqf 10y ago

Would you also hold the post office responsible if they delivered such material? Or the telephone company?

fictioncircle 10y ago
We aren't discussing one-time delivery but an ongoing availability as it is present on the website and would be delivered for weeks/months before a court order to take it down was received. This is more akin to a broadcast where someone picks the channel (url) than the example you provided. That isn't the same thing as a sealed point-to-point non-public delivery of a message and to imply it is equal and equivalent is disingenuous.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  There was at one point a tiny number of very expensive to run networks which could reasonably be supposed to bear the small cost of putting its money where its mouth was every time they showed someone on the tv. Your concept would in fact basically either go laughably unenforced or destroy many to many communication on the internet as we know it as there would be no large channels for distributing any information of any sort as showing anything that couldn't be shown on nickalodeon would be an unacceptable risk in a world where most communication has few viewers and earns no/little money. Once again I am at a loss to understand what is so bad about the way things are that this seems like a good solution.
  - fictioncircle 10y ago
    I'm pretty sure you completely misunderstood what I said given I was replying to a chain of comments like this one: > > The immunity must be limited to sites that are neutral, in the same way that non-political religious organizations are tax-exempt. Why? Because to claim that a site isn't responsible for a user's content is fine, until the site starts editing, censoring or weighting certain points of view. When the site loses its neutrality it ceases to be a conduit of content and instead becomes content. Indemnification from liability for a specific point-of-view is, I feel, an abridgment of free speech and I believe it is unconstitutional.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

Liability is not the same thing as a court order. If you sue someone for libel and win, and the libel is hosted on YouTube, YouTube can't say "nope, Section 230" and keep hosting it. The court can order them to take it down. YouTube just doesn't owe you any damages, you have to take that up with the user. > Indemnification from liability for a specific point-of-view is, I feel, an abridgment of free speech and I believe it is unconstitutional. That would be the case if the government was deciding who could be indemnified based on content, but that isn't what's going on. Consider what you would be doing to search engines. Their entire purpose is to sort content by relevance. There is no opinion-free way to do that, otherwise every search engine would have exactly the same results. You want to impose liability on Google and Bing because they index the whole internet and the internet has bad stuff on it?

ebcode 10y ago
> You want to impose liability on Google and Bing because they index the whole internet and the internet has bad stuff on it? Yes. If you found some, i don't know, child pornography, say, lying in the street, then went around showing it to people saying, "hey, look what I found", that would be considered illegal/repugnant/stupid, right? Why should that same action analogized to the digital domain be any less illegal/repugnant/stupid? I don't think it is.
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  Analogies are often useful tools to explicate things by relating them to already understood concepts but utterly useless to make useful proofs or arguments because it oversimplifies to the point of uselessness and misses the ways things differ. These arguments via analogy are so worthless, so without substance that it is usually a massive waste of time to try to explain to the originator the ways in which the analogy differs from reality so I will simply ask you to come back with an argument based on reality instead.

alexbecker 10y ago

Note sure how an internet service provider could be responsible for "fighting words"--that's a very, very narrow doctrine essentially constrained to yelling something in someone's face that immediately gets you punched.