4 ms·

I think the solution may lie with changes to, or removal of, Section 230 of the CDA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Ac

I think the solution may lie with changes to, or removal of, Section 230 of the CDA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... I suspect that forcing those that host 3rd party content/discussion to actually moderate and control the discussion will keep the size of such online communities smaller, which is good. Or, they will simply need increase revenue so that they can properly moderate them. Either way, the toxic nature of a lot of the internet goes away pretty quickly, and companies will be forced to clean up their act.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> I think the solution may lie with changes to, or removal of, Section 230 of the CDA [...] > I suspect that forcing those that host 3rd party content/discussion to actually moderate and control the discussion [...] CDA Section 230 was largely adopted to encourage active moderation, since without it active moderation made a host a “publisher” rather than a mere “distributor”, which triggers strict liability for a number of violations for which a distributor would only have knowledge-based liability.
- TimJYoung 8y ago
  Yes, but is it being used that way ? Everything that I've seen has indicated that service providers use this law to play it both ways: they actively control what users see through algorithms, but then claim that they are (largely) not responsible for the moderation of questionable content. IOW, they are not just a passive distribution point for information, and, in many cases, actively control the flow of information. Doesn't that intrinsically make them a publisher ?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Yes, but is it being used that way ? Yes, most hosts have and enforce (though imperfectly) content rules as they would be disincentivized from doing without CDA 230. > Everything that I've seen has indicated that service providers use this law to play it both ways: they actively control what users see through algorithms, but then claim that they are (largely) not responsible for the moderation of questionable content. That's not playing it both ways. > IOW, they are not just a passive distribution point for information, and, in many cases, actively control the flow of information. Yes, the entire point of CDA 230 is to allow them to actively moderate without becoming strictly liable for all content, since without that allowance they would be disincentivized from moderation. Removing CDA 230 would not encourage active moderation, it would make active moderation a gateway to unmanageable liability. > Doesn't that intrinsically make them a publisher ? Yes, without CDA 230 it would, restoring the “if you moderate content at all, you must succeed in capturing every bit of user-submitted illegal content or be fully liable as if you had deliberately originated it yourself” rule that was in place before CDA 230 (with the added challenge that there are more content regulations now than before the CDA was adopted), which is not something that promotes moderation, it promotes either no moderation or no user content hosting at all, leaving moderated hosting for operators outside of US jurisdiction.
    - TimJYoung 8y ago
      I think we're talking past each other here (I understand what CDA 230 is supposed to do, I'm referring to how its been used/interpreted). Here is, perhaps, a better version of what I'm trying to say: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2018/08/ftc-2018-0048-d-0023-151008.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2... Edit: the section re: 230 is towards the end. Frontline just covered some of this with respect to FB, also.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> I think the solution may lie with changes to, or removal of, Section 230 of the CDA [...] > I suspect that forcing those that host 3rd party content/discussion to actually moderate and control the discussion [...] CDA Section 230 was largely adopted to encourage active moderation, since without it active moderation made a host a “publisher” rather than a mere “distributor”, which triggers strict liability for a number of violations for which a distributor would only have knowledge-based liability.

TimJYoung 8y ago
Yes, but is it being used that way ? Everything that I've seen has indicated that service providers use this law to play it both ways: they actively control what users see through algorithms, but then claim that they are (largely) not responsible for the moderation of questionable content. IOW, they are not just a passive distribution point for information, and, in many cases, actively control the flow of information. Doesn't that intrinsically make them a publisher ?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Yes, but is it being used that way ? Yes, most hosts have and enforce (though imperfectly) content rules as they would be disincentivized from doing without CDA 230. > Everything that I've seen has indicated that service providers use this law to play it both ways: they actively control what users see through algorithms, but then claim that they are (largely) not responsible for the moderation of questionable content. That's not playing it both ways. > IOW, they are not just a passive distribution point for information, and, in many cases, actively control the flow of information. Yes, the entire point of CDA 230 is to allow them to actively moderate without becoming strictly liable for all content, since without that allowance they would be disincentivized from moderation. Removing CDA 230 would not encourage active moderation, it would make active moderation a gateway to unmanageable liability. > Doesn't that intrinsically make them a publisher ? Yes, without CDA 230 it would, restoring the “if you moderate content at all, you must succeed in capturing every bit of user-submitted illegal content or be fully liable as if you had deliberately originated it yourself” rule that was in place before CDA 230 (with the added challenge that there are more content regulations now than before the CDA was adopted), which is not something that promotes moderation, it promotes either no moderation or no user content hosting at all, leaving moderated hosting for operators outside of US jurisdiction.
  - TimJYoung 8y ago
    I think we're talking past each other here (I understand what CDA 230 is supposed to do, I'm referring to how its been used/interpreted). Here is, perhaps, a better version of what I'm trying to say: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2018/08/ftc-2018-0048-d-0023-151008.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2... Edit: the section re: 230 is towards the end. Frontline just covered some of this with respect to FB, also.