4 ms·

I don't see how you can say that. Section 230 was made to allow service providers to monitor content without becoming responsible for all the content that gets

by kcmp 9y ago

I don't see how you can say that. Section 230 was made to allow service providers to monitor content without becoming responsible for all the content that gets posted by users. Let's say you run a small forum and someone starts harrassing users and creates a very toxic environment. 230 allows you to delete this person's comments/account without suddenly being liable for everything users post on your site. Big companies will just have a team create an automatic filtering tool with strong rules to prevent lawsuits. The forum runner doesn't have the money or resources for that. Maybe startups would pop up and sell filtering services but Joe Smith who was just trying to host a community gardening forum isn't going to want to/be able to pay for that. Either he pays, let's trolls run wild, or brings down the site. It's a lose-lose scenario.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Suggesting that US law makes a company legally culpable for all interaction with that company's website has no basis in our legal system. That isn't how our law has ever worked. The first and foremost thing to understand about law is that intent is as important as the actual act itself. So, no, there is no way removing the blank check we cut big tech is going to hurt small startups or a community forum. And most of those are going to have human moderators that do a much better job than those "automatic filtering tools" you seem to suggest are a solution. The whole point here is that automatic filtering doesn't work. We've seen YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter prove that. Of course, Google has hundreds of billions of dollars at it's disposal, but it isn't hiring human moderators, because it has no reason to: Our government holds that Google isn't responsible for anything on it's platform, so it is better off keeping the money as profit. Now, where it starts to get interesting is perverse incentives: Much of advertising profits comes from malware and scams. Ad companies make billions off this illegal, criminal behavior. And since we've granted them platform immunity, because it's "user content", they're free to keep making that money. They have no reason to take down illegal content, they can't be held responsible for cash cow scams like the fake rehab center fiasco that make them millions. (Source: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/7/16257412/rehabs-near-me-google-search-scam-florida-treatment-centers https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/7/16257412/rehabs-near-me-go...) Even if they get pressured to shut them down, they get to keep all of the profits. Section 230 protects companies which knowingly (and this is key, intent is important) do not remove illegal and criminal conduct because it is profitable, and they can't be held responsible for it. Section 230 does not protect small businesses, and the marketing to protect it relies on fundamental misconceptions about basic legal responsibility. Companies without intent to profit off criminal conduct are protected by the basic concepts of our legal system: That you can't commit a crime without intent. It's amazing how the organizations promoting how critical Section 230 is to "small businesses" are funded by the five largest companies in the US by market cap. (The Center for Democracy & Technology spoke out against SESTA-FOSTA in some articles today, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft are all top tier sponsors.)
- shkkmo 9y ago
  > Suggesting that US law makes a company legally culpable for all interaction with that company's website has no basis in our legal system. That isn't how our law has ever worked. As far as I can tell (and I am not a lawyer) you are wrong about this and there is case law to prove it. As wikipedia says: "The act was passed in part in reaction to the 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.,[3] which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers. This act was passed to specifically enhance service providers' ability to delete or otherwise monitor content without themselves becoming publishers. In Zeran v. America Online, Inc., the Court notes that "Congress enacted § 230 to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision." And here is the link to the court decision being referenced: https://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Stratton_Oakmont_Porush_v_Prodigy/stratton-oakmont_porush_v_prodigy_et-al.decision https://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Stratton_Oakmont_Porush_v_Pro... > Any small site taking reasonable measures to manage their site would be fine. The case law indicates the opposite. Without 230, small sites would have to take NO MEASURE to manage other peoples content on their site. As soon as they took any "reasonable measures" to restrict that content they would assume the role of publisher and become liable.

by kcmp 9y ago

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Suggesting that US law makes a company legally culpable for all interaction with that company's website has no basis in our legal system. That isn't how our law has ever worked. The first and foremost thing to understand about law is that intent is as important as the actual act itself. So, no, there is no way removing the blank check we cut big tech is going to hurt small startups or a community forum. And most of those are going to have human moderators that do a much better job than those "automatic filtering tools" you seem to suggest are a solution. The whole point here is that automatic filtering doesn't work. We've seen YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter prove that. Of course, Google has hundreds of billions of dollars at it's disposal, but it isn't hiring human moderators, because it has no reason to: Our government holds that Google isn't responsible for anything on it's platform, so it is better off keeping the money as profit. Now, where it starts to get interesting is perverse incentives: Much of advertising profits comes from malware and scams. Ad companies make billions off this illegal, criminal behavior. And since we've granted them platform immunity, because it's "user content", they're free to keep making that money. They have no reason to take down illegal content, they can't be held responsible for cash cow scams like the fake rehab center fiasco that make them millions. (Source: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/7/16257412/rehabs-near-me-google-search-scam-florida-treatment-centers https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/7/16257412/rehabs-near-me-go...) Even if they get pressured to shut them down, they get to keep all of the profits. Section 230 protects companies which knowingly (and this is key, intent is important) do not remove illegal and criminal conduct because it is profitable, and they can't be held responsible for it. Section 230 does not protect small businesses, and the marketing to protect it relies on fundamental misconceptions about basic legal responsibility. Companies without intent to profit off criminal conduct are protected by the basic concepts of our legal system: That you can't commit a crime without intent. It's amazing how the organizations promoting how critical Section 230 is to "small businesses" are funded by the five largest companies in the US by market cap. (The Center for Democracy & Technology spoke out against SESTA-FOSTA in some articles today, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft are all top tier sponsors.)

shkkmo 9y ago
> Suggesting that US law makes a company legally culpable for all interaction with that company's website has no basis in our legal system. That isn't how our law has ever worked. As far as I can tell (and I am not a lawyer) you are wrong about this and there is case law to prove it. As wikipedia says: "The act was passed in part in reaction to the 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.,[3] which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers. This act was passed to specifically enhance service providers' ability to delete or otherwise monitor content without themselves becoming publishers. In Zeran v. America Online, Inc., the Court notes that "Congress enacted § 230 to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision." And here is the link to the court decision being referenced: https://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Stratton_Oakmont_Porush_v_Prodigy/stratton-oakmont_porush_v_prodigy_et-al.decision https://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Stratton_Oakmont_Porush_v_Pro... > Any small site taking reasonable measures to manage their site would be fine. The case law indicates the opposite. Without 230, small sites would have to take NO MEASURE to manage other peoples content on their site. As soon as they took any "reasonable measures" to restrict that content they would assume the role of publisher and become liable.