4 ms·

Very unpopular opinion. The internet should be free for everyone and no provider should have the ability to cut off services. The problem is not the platform b

Very unpopular opinion. The internet should be free for everyone and no provider should have the ability to cut off services. The problem is not the platform but the people, hate the player not the game.

roywiggins 7y ago
How do you filter spam if you can't moderate at all? HN only exists as a service because it's quite carefully moderated.
- busymom0 7y ago
  By treating it fairly. Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230 allowed platforms to not be held liable for user generated content. But it did not allow publishers to have the same freedom. Notice the very important distinction between "platforms" vs "publishers". A publisher like a newspaper can be sued for content they put out. A platform cannot be sued for the same. When companies like CloudFlare start banning people for political reasons, they are stepping into the "publishers" market and should be stripped off of the protections from the CDA Section 230. We should be allowed to sue them for content they carry. Right now, they are enjoying the benefits of both - platform and publisher.
  - markbnj 7y ago
    You posted this exact thing above, there was no need to copy/paste it a second time.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    That is not what CDA 230 does. It even allows a website that mostly publishes its own content (like a paper) also publish user comments, without being held liable for them. > This "publisher" v. "platform" concept is a totally artificial distinction that has no basis in the law. News publishers are also protected by Section 230 of the CDA. All CDA 230 does is protect a website from being held liable for user content or moderation choices. It does not cover content created by the company itself. In short, the distinction is not "platform" or "publisher" it's "content creator" or "content intermediary." Contrary to Coaston's claims, Section 230 equally protects the NY Times and the Washington Post if it chooses to host and/or moderate user comments. It does not protect content produced by those companies itself, but similarly, Section 230 does not protect content produced by Facebook itself. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190507/16484342160/one-thing-trolls-grandstanding-politicians-to-get-cda-230-wrong-press-shouldnt-help-them.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190507/16484342160/one-t... The section is actually quite clear if you take the time to read it: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected". An interactive computer service means anything that smells like a website, and here it says they may block or filter anything at all they find objectionable. It's quite explicit. It does not restrict its protections to "platforms", but to any provider of internet services that host third-party content. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
Spivak 7y ago
You should be legally required to do business with any customer? At some level does a person not have the right to say, "I don't like you and won't take your money?" Sure, the US and others have protected classes that limit the reasons you can refuse to do business with someone but those are more to do with people in those classes being unfairly burdened and facing difficulty living tier day-to-day lives.
- busymom0 7y ago
  > You should be legally required to do business with any customer? No you shouldn't be. But this should also be treated fairly. Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230 allowed platforms to not be held liable for user generated content. But it did not allow publishers to have the same freedom. Notice the very important distinction between "platforms" vs "publishers". A publisher like a newspaper can be sued for content they put out. A platform cannot be sued for the same. When companies like CloudFlare start banning people for political reasons, they are stepping into the "publishers" market and should be stripped off of the protections from the CDA Section 230. We should be allowed to sue them for content they carry. Right now, they are enjoying the benefits of both - platform and publisher.
  - cambalache 7y ago
    Go open an ice-cream shop and refuse to serve Asian people because you dont like them.
    - wvenable 7y ago
      You can refuse a serve an Asian person. You just can't refuse to serve Asian people in general.
      - cambalache 7y ago
        And you refuse him based on what? The Axiom of Choice? Because if you refuse him for being Asian and you are consistent you have to refuse all Asians. Because if you refuse 8chan because some killers used the service you will have to refuse Facebook, Twitter, All major Hollywood Studios, the Catholic Church, the GOP, the DP, the Saudi Arabia government and thousands of more organizations which directly or indirectly had a role in many crimes.

roywiggins 7y ago

How do you filter spam if you can't moderate at all? HN only exists as a service because it's quite carefully moderated.

busymom0 7y ago
By treating it fairly. Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230 allowed platforms to not be held liable for user generated content. But it did not allow publishers to have the same freedom. Notice the very important distinction between "platforms" vs "publishers". A publisher like a newspaper can be sued for content they put out. A platform cannot be sued for the same. When companies like CloudFlare start banning people for political reasons, they are stepping into the "publishers" market and should be stripped off of the protections from the CDA Section 230. We should be allowed to sue them for content they carry. Right now, they are enjoying the benefits of both - platform and publisher.
- markbnj 7y ago
  You posted this exact thing above, there was no need to copy/paste it a second time.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  That is not what CDA 230 does. It even allows a website that mostly publishes its own content (like a paper) also publish user comments, without being held liable for them. > This "publisher" v. "platform" concept is a totally artificial distinction that has no basis in the law. News publishers are also protected by Section 230 of the CDA. All CDA 230 does is protect a website from being held liable for user content or moderation choices. It does not cover content created by the company itself. In short, the distinction is not "platform" or "publisher" it's "content creator" or "content intermediary." Contrary to Coaston's claims, Section 230 equally protects the NY Times and the Washington Post if it chooses to host and/or moderate user comments. It does not protect content produced by those companies itself, but similarly, Section 230 does not protect content produced by Facebook itself. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190507/16484342160/one-thing-trolls-grandstanding-politicians-to-get-cda-230-wrong-press-shouldnt-help-them.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190507/16484342160/one-t... The section is actually quite clear if you take the time to read it: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected". An interactive computer service means anything that smells like a website, and here it says they may block or filter anything at all they find objectionable. It's quite explicit. It does not restrict its protections to "platforms", but to any provider of internet services that host third-party content. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Spivak 7y ago

You should be legally required to do business with any customer? At some level does a person not have the right to say, "I don't like you and won't take your money?" Sure, the US and others have protected classes that limit the reasons you can refuse to do business with someone but those are more to do with people in those classes being unfairly burdened and facing difficulty living tier day-to-day lives.

busymom0 7y ago
> You should be legally required to do business with any customer? No you shouldn't be. But this should also be treated fairly. Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230 allowed platforms to not be held liable for user generated content. But it did not allow publishers to have the same freedom. Notice the very important distinction between "platforms" vs "publishers". A publisher like a newspaper can be sued for content they put out. A platform cannot be sued for the same. When companies like CloudFlare start banning people for political reasons, they are stepping into the "publishers" market and should be stripped off of the protections from the CDA Section 230. We should be allowed to sue them for content they carry. Right now, they are enjoying the benefits of both - platform and publisher.
- cambalache 7y ago
  Go open an ice-cream shop and refuse to serve Asian people because you dont like them.
  - wvenable 7y ago
    You can refuse a serve an Asian person. You just can't refuse to serve Asian people in general.
    - cambalache 7y ago
      And you refuse him based on what? The Axiom of Choice? Because if you refuse him for being Asian and you are consistent you have to refuse all Asians. Because if you refuse 8chan because some killers used the service you will have to refuse Facebook, Twitter, All major Hollywood Studios, the Catholic Church, the GOP, the DP, the Saudi Arabia government and thousands of more organizations which directly or indirectly had a role in many crimes.