4 ms·

> Internet firms in America are shielded from legal responsibility for content posted on their services. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 t

> Internet firms in America are shielded from legal responsibility for content posted on their services. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 treats them as intermediaries, not publishers—to protect them from legal jeopardy. > When the online industry was limited to young, vulnerable startups this approach was reasonable. That's the wrong way to look at it. The size of the company should not matter here. It's how they operate that should determine which regulation applies to them. There are only two reasonable alternative: Either they are intermediaries, in which case they should have the duty to indiscriminately intermediate whatever they are asked to intermediate. This means no centralised moderation. Maybe allow moderation at the sub-community level (as Reddit does with its subforums), but no centralised censorship, except maybe upon reception of a warrant. Or they are editors, in which case they should have full legal responsibility of the content, and suffer full legal consequences of whatever illegal speech they allowed. I believe such a clean dichotomy is the only way to ensure free speech in the face of such centralised services. 'Cause I think the likes of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter… would rather choose the "intermediary" path than risk taking legal responsibility for their enormous user base.

XorNot 8y ago
This implies no suggestions algorithms and news feeds either. If these sites are pure intermediaries, then running machine-driven editorializing by controlling and suggesting the content people see is not a neutral act - those algorithms are biased and they choose how they act. Imagine a phone company which selectively didn't send calls to you because it's automated checkers determined you weren't interested. If you got nothing but telemarketing, well, now they're no longer a pure transit are they? Social media owners are already editors and they're trying to shirk their responsibility.
- loup-vaillant 8y ago
  > This implies no suggestions algorithms and news feeds either. Yep, it does.
  - caseysoftware 8y ago
    Frankly, I'm surprised this doesn't get more attention. At present, Twitter, et al are in an incredibly weird position. They claim to be "public spaces" which is the foundation of the lawsuit against Trump blocking people and making company announcements SEC-compliant. Further, they claim to be "neutral" but apply "quality filters" and flag bad (but not illegal!) content. But then Twitter revokes the blue checks for poor behavior and they all ban people for bad (but not illegal!) behavior. at least claim they weren't playing as editors. So they're only the particular thing to a particular audience when they need to be but something else when it's more convenient. I don't see how the reasoning fits together.
qubax 8y ago
> Maybe allow moderation at the sub-community level (as Reddit does with its subforums), but no centralised censorship Reddit most definitely has centralized censorship. They have additional subreddit censorship left to the discretion of subreddit moderators. Reddit, like most social media sites, have been slowly moving from intermediary platforms to edited platforms. > 'Cause I think the likes of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter… would rather choose the "intermediary" path than risk taking legal responsibility for their enormous user base. They prefer the intermediary position, but are pressured to act as editors by politicians and the news companies.
c3534l 8y ago
I don't think such black and white thinking is appropriate here. Most websites are neither or something in between. It would be intellectually nice if there was such a simple distinction, but it's entirely artificial, a remnant of an information society that no longer exs ists.

XorNot 8y ago

This implies no suggestions algorithms and news feeds either. If these sites are pure intermediaries, then running machine-driven editorializing by controlling and suggesting the content people see is not a neutral act - those algorithms are biased and they choose how they act. Imagine a phone company which selectively didn't send calls to you because it's automated checkers determined you weren't interested. If you got nothing but telemarketing, well, now they're no longer a pure transit are they? Social media owners are already editors and they're trying to shirk their responsibility.

loup-vaillant 8y ago
> This implies no suggestions algorithms and news feeds either. Yep, it does.
- caseysoftware 8y ago
  Frankly, I'm surprised this doesn't get more attention. At present, Twitter, et al are in an incredibly weird position. They claim to be "public spaces" which is the foundation of the lawsuit against Trump blocking people and making company announcements SEC-compliant. Further, they claim to be "neutral" but apply "quality filters" and flag bad (but not illegal!) content. But then Twitter revokes the blue checks for poor behavior and they all ban people for bad (but not illegal!) behavior. at least claim they weren't playing as editors. So they're only the particular thing to a particular audience when they need to be but something else when it's more convenient. I don't see how the reasoning fits together.

qubax 8y ago

> Maybe allow moderation at the sub-community level (as Reddit does with its subforums), but no centralised censorship Reddit most definitely has centralized censorship. They have additional subreddit censorship left to the discretion of subreddit moderators. Reddit, like most social media sites, have been slowly moving from intermediary platforms to edited platforms. > 'Cause I think the likes of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter… would rather choose the "intermediary" path than risk taking legal responsibility for their enormous user base. They prefer the intermediary position, but are pressured to act as editors by politicians and the news companies.

c3534l 8y ago

I don't think such black and white thinking is appropriate here. Most websites are neither or something in between. It would be intellectually nice if there was such a simple distinction, but it's entirely artificial, a remnant of an information society that no longer exs ists.