5 ms·

While this legislation is not well-drafted, it's got some giant flaws, it was passed without consultation, and (at least from my non-extremism-expert point of v

While this legislation is not well-drafted, it's got some giant flaws, it was passed without consultation, and (at least from my non-extremism-expert point of view) it won't do a huge amount to stop the rise of extremists (whether of the far-right, Islamist or other varieties) because they don't really need this kind of content to build their movements... In principle, I'm quite okay with the scope of the censorship that's imposed by this legislation (which is quite narrow), and in general, I'm quite okay with the idea of holding social media platforms to account with the threat of massive penalties, when it comes to content that is obviously objectionable. I think the fact that a pro-business Western government is willing to impose penalties of up to 10% of global revenue says something about the way we're beginning to view the place and the responsibilities of the big social media platforms. I don't think I support this particular piece of legislation as a whole, but I am okay with much of the core idea behind it, and I wish they had done it properly and thoughtfully rather than rushing it. It's also clear that they're not going to do anything about improving regulation of problematic elements of the mainstream media. (edit: I should add - I have given the text of the bill a skim read, and read some media commentary but not any serious expert or industry commentary on this. This is only a mildly-informed set of opinions.)

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tathougies 8y ago
> threat of massive penalties, when it comes to content that is obviously objectionable. Totally agree. Hacker news should be punished for providing a platform for your obviously objectionable statements.
- silvester23 8y ago
  That sounds a lot like a slippery slope fallacy.
  - jakeogh 8y ago
    Incrementalism is the most common route to totalitarianism.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    All our societies have a long track record of censoring "obviously objectionable" things. Historically, that has meant pretty much anything, from communism and race mixing, to public kissing and D&D. I think at this point the onus is on those who want such vague definitions to prove that they won't be applied outside of the very narrow scope that's advertised when selling them - and by "prove" I mean "show me how the checks and balances will work", not "I pinky swear we'll never ever use this anti-terrorist law to target political activists".
splintercell 8y ago
What makes you think that the solution wouldn't be something like how Staples and Fedex copy centers used in response to copyright liability laws where they handed the responsibility of the content they're photocopying/printing on the user (which is why they don't print things for you, they just let you use their photocopy machine/computers. I am imagining that companies may come up with legal solution which uses technology in a way that puts this liability in the hands of the user (of course this would only happen if US follows a similar law).
- ajdlinux 8y ago
  This is literally the CDA 230 approach that every internet company currently relies on. The approach this legislation takes is different, and puts liability explicitly on the hosting services.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

tathougies 8y ago

> threat of massive penalties, when it comes to content that is obviously objectionable. Totally agree. Hacker news should be punished for providing a platform for your obviously objectionable statements.

silvester23 8y ago
That sounds a lot like a slippery slope fallacy.
- jakeogh 8y ago
  Incrementalism is the most common route to totalitarianism.
- int_19h 8y ago
  All our societies have a long track record of censoring "obviously objectionable" things. Historically, that has meant pretty much anything, from communism and race mixing, to public kissing and D&D. I think at this point the onus is on those who want such vague definitions to prove that they won't be applied outside of the very narrow scope that's advertised when selling them - and by "prove" I mean "show me how the checks and balances will work", not "I pinky swear we'll never ever use this anti-terrorist law to target political activists".

splintercell 8y ago

What makes you think that the solution wouldn't be something like how Staples and Fedex copy centers used in response to copyright liability laws where they handed the responsibility of the content they're photocopying/printing on the user (which is why they don't print things for you, they just let you use their photocopy machine/computers. I am imagining that companies may come up with legal solution which uses technology in a way that puts this liability in the hands of the user (of course this would only happen if US follows a similar law).

ajdlinux 8y ago
This is literally the CDA 230 approach that every internet company currently relies on. The approach this legislation takes is different, and puts liability explicitly on the hosting services.