5 ms·

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 th

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
      You've misunderstood my argument. My argument is as follows: Publishers are required to strictly moderate their content. Online publishers are protected from these requirements. The reason that online publishers are not required to have strict moderation is because it is not possible to have strict moderation. If it is possible to have strict moderation, then their protections should be removed and online publishers should be required to have strict moderation. By applying strict moderation, you are showing that it is possible to apply strict moderation. Therefore, you should be treated as a publisher and made to comply with all other regulations relative to that status.
      - lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
        You're still making the same fallacy just moving it around. The ability to apply strict moderation -> the ability to moderate at all; however this is not necessarily true in reverse. You can moderate your forum and still be unable to comply with the law to the standard publishers can.
        ameister14 8y ago
        That's not the same fallacy at all. I'm not sure it means what you think it means. You're saying that moderation is possible without strict moderation. I'm not disputing that, but instead saying that strict moderation is possible, implied by the complete banning of a particular opinion. If I'm incorrect about the possibility of strict moderation, it doesn't mean that logically there is a fallacy. If I am correct, there is still no fallacy.
        8y ago

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
    You've misunderstood my argument. My argument is as follows: Publishers are required to strictly moderate their content. Online publishers are protected from these requirements. The reason that online publishers are not required to have strict moderation is because it is not possible to have strict moderation. If it is possible to have strict moderation, then their protections should be removed and online publishers should be required to have strict moderation. By applying strict moderation, you are showing that it is possible to apply strict moderation. Therefore, you should be treated as a publisher and made to comply with all other regulations relative to that status.
    - lordCarbonFiber 8y ago
      You're still making the same fallacy just moving it around. The ability to apply strict moderation -> the ability to moderate at all; however this is not necessarily true in reverse. You can moderate your forum and still be unable to comply with the law to the standard publishers can.
      - ameister14 8y ago
        That's not the same fallacy at all. I'm not sure it means what you think it means. You're saying that moderation is possible without strict moderation. I'm not disputing that, but instead saying that strict moderation is possible, implied by the complete banning of a particular opinion. If I'm incorrect about the possibility of strict moderation, it doesn't mean that logically there is a fallacy. If I am correct, there is still no fallacy.
        8y ago