4 ms·

You've posted that talking point several times in this thread, I don't think that means what you think it means. A web host's right to exercise their speech by

You've posted that talking point several times in this thread, I don't think that means what you think it means. A web host's right to exercise their speech by moderating the forum they pay for has absolutely nothing to do with the safe harbor laws you're alluding you. Just the same as kicking someone out of your house party for being an ass, you can be removed from internet spaces in the same way. Just because the interaction is digital doesn't grant you some higher set of ~rights~.

ameister14 8y ago
Ah, but that's exactly it - a web host's right to exercise their speech DOES have to do with the safe harbor laws, because the safe harbor laws make it clear that a host is not treated a publisher or a writer of content. The reason behind this is because removing content is an 'impossible burden.' You are saying it is not an impossible burden, but definitely doable. That means that you don't have the same logical basis for legal protections. http://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/gov.uscourts.tnmd.53480.45.0.pdf http://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/gov.uscourts.tnmd.5...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Ah, but that's exactly it - a web host's right to exercise their speech DOES have to do with the safe harbor laws Yes, as protecting and encouraging exercise of self-regulation and editorial functions is a central purpose of those laws, as discussed in Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir., 1997), quoted in my comment in another subthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18347523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18347523
  - ameister14 8y ago
    And as I replied there, also in Zeran: "It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems. Faced with potential liability for each message republished by their services, interactive computer service providers might choose to severely restrict the number and type of messages posted." This 'Impossible Burden' element continued to expand the use of section 230, until the most recent protecting against child trafficking legislation. Also, it was protection of self-regulation of obscene and/or libelous content, not general content.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      But the fact that CDA § 230 was expressly adopted (and has been repeatedly upheld in broad application on this basis) permitting self-regulation and editorial control of third-party content without exposing site operators to strict liability for unlawful content that they miss means you can't use it to defend the argument that self-regulation and editorial control are inconsistent with CDA § 230, and that site operators being able to establish content policies implies that they must be deprived of the safe harbor. That's the opposite of the safe harbor rationale.
      - ameister14 8y ago
        I'm actually saying that the safe harbor rationale exists because it was believed that completely regulating content was impossible. If this is not impossible, then there should be no need for safe harbor. Also, safe harbor has been used to defend not applying content policy; I'm not sure it's ever been used to defend the application of a content policy.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > I'm actually saying that the safe harbor rationale exists because it was believed that completely regulating content was impossible. Completely regulating content may be impossible (or, at least, a greater burden relative to other irreducible costs) in online media, and at least the latter if not the former is a premise of the CDA safe harbor. But since adopting and making best effort enforcement of a content policy does not require the ability to completely regulate content, site operators having a Constitutional right (as they clearly do) to adopt and enforce such a policy is not, in any way, inconsistent with the continued existence of the safe harbor.
    - lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
      Your entire argument is based on denying the antecedent[0]. Because hosts can't be legally required to have strict moderation has nothing to do with the idea that they are legally compelled to host anything. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

ameister14 8y ago

Ah, but that's exactly it - a web host's right to exercise their speech DOES have to do with the safe harbor laws, because the safe harbor laws make it clear that a host is not treated a publisher or a writer of content. The reason behind this is because removing content is an 'impossible burden.' You are saying it is not an impossible burden, but definitely doable. That means that you don't have the same logical basis for legal protections. http://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/gov.uscourts.tnmd.53480.45.0.pdf http://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/gov.uscourts.tnmd.5...

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Ah, but that's exactly it - a web host's right to exercise their speech DOES have to do with the safe harbor laws Yes, as protecting and encouraging exercise of self-regulation and editorial functions is a central purpose of those laws, as discussed in Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir., 1997), quoted in my comment in another subthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18347523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18347523
- ameister14 8y ago
  And as I replied there, also in Zeran: "It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems. Faced with potential liability for each message republished by their services, interactive computer service providers might choose to severely restrict the number and type of messages posted." This 'Impossible Burden' element continued to expand the use of section 230, until the most recent protecting against child trafficking legislation. Also, it was protection of self-regulation of obscene and/or libelous content, not general content.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    But the fact that CDA § 230 was expressly adopted (and has been repeatedly upheld in broad application on this basis) permitting self-regulation and editorial control of third-party content without exposing site operators to strict liability for unlawful content that they miss means you can't use it to defend the argument that self-regulation and editorial control are inconsistent with CDA § 230, and that site operators being able to establish content policies implies that they must be deprived of the safe harbor. That's the opposite of the safe harbor rationale.
    - ameister14 8y ago
      I'm actually saying that the safe harbor rationale exists because it was believed that completely regulating content was impossible. If this is not impossible, then there should be no need for safe harbor. Also, safe harbor has been used to defend not applying content policy; I'm not sure it's ever been used to defend the application of a content policy.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > I'm actually saying that the safe harbor rationale exists because it was believed that completely regulating content was impossible. Completely regulating content may be impossible (or, at least, a greater burden relative to other irreducible costs) in online media, and at least the latter if not the former is a premise of the CDA safe harbor. But since adopting and making best effort enforcement of a content policy does not require the ability to completely regulate content, site operators having a Constitutional right (as they clearly do) to adopt and enforce such a policy is not, in any way, inconsistent with the continued existence of the safe harbor.
  - lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
    Your entire argument is based on denying the antecedent[0]. Because hosts can't be legally required to have strict moderation has nothing to do with the idea that they are legally compelled to host anything. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent