5 ms·

This argument has become a meme at this point. EFF debunks it. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral https

This argument has become a meme at this point. EFF debunks it. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no... >These are inherently conflicting things. Section 230 gives special protection on the assumption that platforms aren't involved in selecting what users post. But then with the other hand, platforms are selecting what users post via their content guidelines. No. If HN removes spam or off topic content or anything else, it does not automatically mean that it's suddenly liable for someone posting libel and getting sued over it. That wasn't the intent of the law from the text, and it was never interpreted that way.

neuland 7y ago
EFF's word is not god. I like them, but you make it sound like it's a settled debate. I'm here to say there's another side and present that viewpoint. As you many imagine, I agree with Sen. Cruz's line of question from the article you linked. And I don't think EFF's solution is viable. They suggest that Facebook should make their policies more transparent and give users more control over what they see. But this misses the entire point. Facebook/YouTube/etc are in a monopoly position. They've proven that they are nakedly partisan, and they have no intention of acting in good faith. Platforms should not be allowed to discriminate on any viewpoint or legal content. They can still provide tools for advertisers to choose what content their ads appear next to. And they can still provide tools for users to choose what they see. But discriminating on some viewpoints and not others is anathema to a public forum. And you can read Section 230 that way.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 7y ago
  I'm not sure where you (or Sen. Cruz) are getting this interpretation from. Section 230 exists because Congress recognized that the then-only options of "common carrier" and "publisher" were too binary and didn't account for anything in between. It explicitly allows owners of content platforms that have moderation/curation in place to avoid liability for what their users publish. I'm not saying it's good that companies like Google and Facebook can shape public discourse by suppressing views with political viewpoints they don't like, and I do think that should be addressed, but Section 230 is what explicitly allows them to do that, not the opposite.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  >But discriminating on some viewpoints and not others is anathema to a public forum. And you can read Section 230 that way. Section 230 explicitly states they can restrict access to constitutionally protected content. You can disagree that the law should allow that, but I can't understand how you can read the section that way.
- manfredo 7y ago
  What you're describing is illegal. Freedom of speech also means freedom from compelled speech. The government cannot (at least outside of very specific circumstances - like an employer informing employees of workplace protections) make companies publish content. If congress tried to pass a law forcing YouTube to host PragerU's content, that would get immediately thrown out by the courts.
- throwaway4220 7y ago
  > They've proven that they are nakedly partisan Cite your claim here. If PragerU is dropped for being conservative, but FB helped a conservative president, how can you lump these two? > Facebook/YouTube/etc are in a monopoly position. Maybe go after this aspect if you believe they are suppressing other content providers.
- toomanyrichies 7y ago
  If you believe Facebook is a monopoly, then the solution is to break up its monopoly, not to compel it to behave a certain way in its capacity as a monopoly.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    In the past, other remedies have been found. For some time, there was a status called "common carrier". Firms that were considered common carriers certainly were compelled to behave in certain ways. Now they've paid lobbyists and lawyers lots of money so that doesn't exist anymore. Still, it isn't inconceivable that legislators who really valued the public good could create a "common online service" status to cover this and similar situations.
    - belltaco 7y ago
      This doesn't make any sense. The common carrier status still exists. It doesn't make sense to apply it to particular websites unless Congress acts to create a new law.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Natsu 7y ago
I get that, but what happens when the big ISPs decide to moderate content? They're private businesses too... Isn't that what started the movement for Net Neutrality in the first place? They were going to start charging us to provide YouTube, etc. I agree that this is a bad legal argument, but I do think there's an underlying issue, even if it's not an issue with YouTube itself. Granted, the best way to deal with that might be to attach some sort of neutrality provisions to the various contracts they have to agree to in order to lay fiber, get spectrum, etc. rather than deciding what websites can and can't do.
- belltaco 7y ago
  I believe ISPs are common carriers, so a different set of laws apply to them. Net Neutrality had to nothing to do with partisan content, it was about charging senders of the data extra, based on the type of bits, e.g video content.
  - Natsu 7y ago
    As long as they can charge senders of data, surely they can do so in a partisan way? I would agree that they shouldn't, but I don't know if I can say that they won't.
jessaustin 7y ago
As a supporter of EFF, I wish they had found space in that piece to talk about the monopoly in online video that Alphabet enjoys. If Youtube had to stand on its own feet as a profitable service, different editorial choices would be made. So fortunate, for them, that we've allowed them the massive subsidy of Alphabet's massive online advertising business...
- belltaco 7y ago
  >As a supporter of EFF, I wish they had found space in that piece to talk about the monopoly in online video that Alphabet enjoys. In the same spirit, I wish you had space to discuss PragerU's fracking billionaire funded fossil fuel propaganda. https://www.prageru.com/video/fossil-fuels-the-greenest-energy/ https://www.prageru.com/video/fossil-fuels-the-greenest-ener... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Teja5YNCo&vl=en https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Teja5YNCo&vl=en From the Wiki: >Much of the early funding for PragerU came from hydraulic fracturing billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks.[2][4] Not to mention all the heavily funded global warming denialism pushed by it.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    In the same spirit... What spirit is that? Have you sent me money? Do you wear hats and T-shirts with my name on them? b^) Seriously, though, we have plenty of space here. It doesn't surprise me that rich people like to give money to people who agree that those same rich people should be rich. Basically everything I see on TV, and certainly all the ads, amount to the same thing. With all of their vast resources, the Wilks haven't managed to keep the message of global warming from reaching me. Isn't that curious? Here you have several actual billionaires, allied with a variety of vaguely telegenic pundits, and Alphabet swats them away without even really making an effort. That's the monopoly I was talking about. You may celebrate when speakers you dislike are silenced, but it makes me wonder who else is being silenced, who because they're not billionaires never even came to my attention.

neuland 7y ago

EFF's word is not god. I like them, but you make it sound like it's a settled debate. I'm here to say there's another side and present that viewpoint. As you many imagine, I agree with Sen. Cruz's line of question from the article you linked. And I don't think EFF's solution is viable. They suggest that Facebook should make their policies more transparent and give users more control over what they see. But this misses the entire point. Facebook/YouTube/etc are in a monopoly position. They've proven that they are nakedly partisan, and they have no intention of acting in good faith. Platforms should not be allowed to discriminate on any viewpoint or legal content. They can still provide tools for advertisers to choose what content their ads appear next to. And they can still provide tools for users to choose what they see. But discriminating on some viewpoints and not others is anathema to a public forum. And you can read Section 230 that way.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 7y ago
I'm not sure where you (or Sen. Cruz) are getting this interpretation from. Section 230 exists because Congress recognized that the then-only options of "common carrier" and "publisher" were too binary and didn't account for anything in between. It explicitly allows owners of content platforms that have moderation/curation in place to avoid liability for what their users publish. I'm not saying it's good that companies like Google and Facebook can shape public discourse by suppressing views with political viewpoints they don't like, and I do think that should be addressed, but Section 230 is what explicitly allows them to do that, not the opposite.
boomboomsubban 7y ago
>But discriminating on some viewpoints and not others is anathema to a public forum. And you can read Section 230 that way. Section 230 explicitly states they can restrict access to constitutionally protected content. You can disagree that the law should allow that, but I can't understand how you can read the section that way.
manfredo 7y ago
What you're describing is illegal. Freedom of speech also means freedom from compelled speech. The government cannot (at least outside of very specific circumstances - like an employer informing employees of workplace protections) make companies publish content. If congress tried to pass a law forcing YouTube to host PragerU's content, that would get immediately thrown out by the courts.
throwaway4220 7y ago
> They've proven that they are nakedly partisan Cite your claim here. If PragerU is dropped for being conservative, but FB helped a conservative president, how can you lump these two? > Facebook/YouTube/etc are in a monopoly position. Maybe go after this aspect if you believe they are suppressing other content providers.
toomanyrichies 7y ago
If you believe Facebook is a monopoly, then the solution is to break up its monopoly, not to compel it to behave a certain way in its capacity as a monopoly.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  In the past, other remedies have been found. For some time, there was a status called "common carrier". Firms that were considered common carriers certainly were compelled to behave in certain ways. Now they've paid lobbyists and lawyers lots of money so that doesn't exist anymore. Still, it isn't inconceivable that legislators who really valued the public good could create a "common online service" status to cover this and similar situations.
  - belltaco 7y ago
    This doesn't make any sense. The common carrier status still exists. It doesn't make sense to apply it to particular websites unless Congress acts to create a new law.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Natsu 7y ago

I get that, but what happens when the big ISPs decide to moderate content? They're private businesses too... Isn't that what started the movement for Net Neutrality in the first place? They were going to start charging us to provide YouTube, etc. I agree that this is a bad legal argument, but I do think there's an underlying issue, even if it's not an issue with YouTube itself. Granted, the best way to deal with that might be to attach some sort of neutrality provisions to the various contracts they have to agree to in order to lay fiber, get spectrum, etc. rather than deciding what websites can and can't do.

belltaco 7y ago
I believe ISPs are common carriers, so a different set of laws apply to them. Net Neutrality had to nothing to do with partisan content, it was about charging senders of the data extra, based on the type of bits, e.g video content.
- Natsu 7y ago
  As long as they can charge senders of data, surely they can do so in a partisan way? I would agree that they shouldn't, but I don't know if I can say that they won't.

jessaustin 7y ago

As a supporter of EFF, I wish they had found space in that piece to talk about the monopoly in online video that Alphabet enjoys. If Youtube had to stand on its own feet as a profitable service, different editorial choices would be made. So fortunate, for them, that we've allowed them the massive subsidy of Alphabet's massive online advertising business...

belltaco 7y ago
>As a supporter of EFF, I wish they had found space in that piece to talk about the monopoly in online video that Alphabet enjoys. In the same spirit, I wish you had space to discuss PragerU's fracking billionaire funded fossil fuel propaganda. https://www.prageru.com/video/fossil-fuels-the-greenest-energy/ https://www.prageru.com/video/fossil-fuels-the-greenest-ener... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Teja5YNCo&vl=en https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49Teja5YNCo&vl=en From the Wiki: >Much of the early funding for PragerU came from hydraulic fracturing billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks.[2][4] Not to mention all the heavily funded global warming denialism pushed by it.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  In the same spirit... What spirit is that? Have you sent me money? Do you wear hats and T-shirts with my name on them? b^) Seriously, though, we have plenty of space here. It doesn't surprise me that rich people like to give money to people who agree that those same rich people should be rich. Basically everything I see on TV, and certainly all the ads, amount to the same thing. With all of their vast resources, the Wilks haven't managed to keep the message of global warming from reaching me. Isn't that curious? Here you have several actual billionaires, allied with a variety of vaguely telegenic pundits, and Alphabet swats them away without even really making an effort. That's the monopoly I was talking about. You may celebrate when speakers you dislike are silenced, but it makes me wonder who else is being silenced, who because they're not billionaires never even came to my attention.