4 ms·

Honestly, the second google started owning and promoting their own properties on search results, anti-trust regulators should have jumped on it. I'm really not

Honestly, the second google started owning and promoting their own properties on search results, anti-trust regulators should have jumped on it. I'm really not sure how Google can be protected by Section 230 and at the same time control and publish so much directly. Last time I read an article on the topic, google controls 23% of the top 100 sites.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
I've heard a decent amount of wrong takes on Section 230. But this is the most bizarre, yet. Neither the CDA, nor section 230 specifically, create the sort of publisher/platform dichotomy people seem to be hung up on. And Section 230 does exactly the opposite of what people commonly think it does. It's actually right there, in the text: 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 [...] That seems really easy to understand: you can delete nazi propaganda, porn, bad jokes, or just random user content from your platform without running the risk of thereby assuming liability for the rest.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  But the inherently problem is that they need to be held liable for the rest. Because the rest is often criminal activity of which those platforms are making a profit. Perhaps removing Section 230 isn't enough, by your definition, because we need a law that explicitly holds platforms liable for profits generated from illegal activity.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    That is a curious definition of need. Are landlords liable in your world for renting apartments to people who run ponzi schemes?
    - martin_a 7y ago
      When they get to know about that fact and do not take steps to end this behaviour, although it would be in their possibilities, they might be held liable, too. So ocdtrekkies point stands, imho. Google is directly profiting from shady activities through their services and therefore has no incentive to control or stop that behaviour. That's a tricky thing.
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      Not in my world; planet earth is a large place. But in the country I live in, the USA, landlords are liable for many things their tenants do. A friend of mine is a landlord and he almost lost a house he owns because his tenant was cooking meth in it. I don't remember the exact details, but the liability was no joke. P.S. I don't agree with this liability issue, I'm simply describing reality as it is.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Section 230 didn't prevent Google from being fined $500M for publishing ads for Canadian pharmacies selling drugs to US citizens. What kind of illegal activities are you talking about, exactly?
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      Google regularly distributes malicious websites and malware through ads, and refuses to delist reported malicious websites. (Google Ads is the primary distributor of Windows PC malware today, if my customer support experience is any indication.) And the problem is that Google has a perverse incentive: More bidders for ads means higher bids. Since malicious actors raise the prices, they benefit from bad actors selling ads. And the problem is that even if someone finally comes in and shuts those actors down, Google kept all the profit from the malicious activity. In order to incentivize Google to police it's ad platform, we need to implement a requirement which seizes all revenue from malicious advertising, retroactively when a malicious account is flagged/reported. If Google is losing revenue on allowing bad actors on their ad platform, they'll be incentivized to quickly respond to reports and remove them so that legitimate ads, which they make money on, can have those ad slots.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        More clicks on ads that lead to malware also leads to fewer clicks in the future, though. Have you published data about this anywhere, like a list of reported links that were ignored?
        4ntonius8lock 7y ago
        > More clicks on ads that lead to malware also leads to fewer clicks in the future, though. I really doubt this works this way. There's 3 assumptions here, for your scenario to play out, people must pass the following funnels: 1- The person notices the malware 2- The person associates the connection between the ad and the malware. 3- After making the connection they install a non-dummy adblocker. Dummy adblockers like the one by Eyeo whitelist google's ads while actually harming the competition. It benefits them! Note: if I look up adblock on google, uBlock is only mentioned on page 2 of google and only because it's mentioned as a competitor to adblock on a zdnet article. The first whole page is dedicated to the Eyeo plug in. I'd say very few people will get through that funnel. My experience is that when my family and friends actually seek out help with their computers, they have let it go for years until the computer is a slow mess of malware, self installed spyware in the form of browser add ons and other crazy stuff. I've actually known a person who buys a computer every couple of years when it 'gets slow' simply to avoid maintenance. The few that I know from IRL relationships that do use an adblock, mostly use adblock by Eyeo, simply because of the domain and ranking on google.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago

I've heard a decent amount of wrong takes on Section 230. But this is the most bizarre, yet. Neither the CDA, nor section 230 specifically, create the sort of publisher/platform dichotomy people seem to be hung up on. And Section 230 does exactly the opposite of what people commonly think it does. It's actually right there, in the text: 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 [...] That seems really easy to understand: you can delete nazi propaganda, porn, bad jokes, or just random user content from your platform without running the risk of thereby assuming liability for the rest.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
But the inherently problem is that they need to be held liable for the rest. Because the rest is often criminal activity of which those platforms are making a profit. Perhaps removing Section 230 isn't enough, by your definition, because we need a law that explicitly holds platforms liable for profits generated from illegal activity.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  That is a curious definition of need. Are landlords liable in your world for renting apartments to people who run ponzi schemes?
  - martin_a 7y ago
    When they get to know about that fact and do not take steps to end this behaviour, although it would be in their possibilities, they might be held liable, too. So ocdtrekkies point stands, imho. Google is directly profiting from shady activities through their services and therefore has no incentive to control or stop that behaviour. That's a tricky thing.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    Not in my world; planet earth is a large place. But in the country I live in, the USA, landlords are liable for many things their tenants do. A friend of mine is a landlord and he almost lost a house he owns because his tenant was cooking meth in it. I don't remember the exact details, but the liability was no joke. P.S. I don't agree with this liability issue, I'm simply describing reality as it is.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Section 230 didn't prevent Google from being fined $500M for publishing ads for Canadian pharmacies selling drugs to US citizens. What kind of illegal activities are you talking about, exactly?
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    Google regularly distributes malicious websites and malware through ads, and refuses to delist reported malicious websites. (Google Ads is the primary distributor of Windows PC malware today, if my customer support experience is any indication.) And the problem is that Google has a perverse incentive: More bidders for ads means higher bids. Since malicious actors raise the prices, they benefit from bad actors selling ads. And the problem is that even if someone finally comes in and shuts those actors down, Google kept all the profit from the malicious activity. In order to incentivize Google to police it's ad platform, we need to implement a requirement which seizes all revenue from malicious advertising, retroactively when a malicious account is flagged/reported. If Google is losing revenue on allowing bad actors on their ad platform, they'll be incentivized to quickly respond to reports and remove them so that legitimate ads, which they make money on, can have those ad slots.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      More clicks on ads that lead to malware also leads to fewer clicks in the future, though. Have you published data about this anywhere, like a list of reported links that were ignored?
      - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
        > More clicks on ads that lead to malware also leads to fewer clicks in the future, though. I really doubt this works this way. There's 3 assumptions here, for your scenario to play out, people must pass the following funnels: 1- The person notices the malware 2- The person associates the connection between the ad and the malware. 3- After making the connection they install a non-dummy adblocker. Dummy adblockers like the one by Eyeo whitelist google's ads while actually harming the competition. It benefits them! Note: if I look up adblock on google, uBlock is only mentioned on page 2 of google and only because it's mentioned as a competitor to adblock on a zdnet article. The first whole page is dedicated to the Eyeo plug in. I'd say very few people will get through that funnel. My experience is that when my family and friends actually seek out help with their computers, they have let it go for years until the computer is a slow mess of malware, self installed spyware in the form of browser add ons and other crazy stuff. I've actually known a person who buys a computer every couple of years when it 'gets slow' simply to avoid maintenance. The few that I know from IRL relationships that do use an adblock, mostly use adblock by Eyeo, simply because of the domain and ranking on google.