4 ms·

FB and google aside - why does something like signal need section 230 protections to operate ?

unnouinceput 7y ago
World-wide? It doesn't. In US? it does. Also once Google will obey to out Signal from their store, usage will decrease (and is not a wide usage currently to begin with). Short-term effects? Power back to surveillance / power grabbers. They don't care about CSAM, they care about money/power. Long-term effects? Like dark web, Signal (or something similar) will be used mostly by criminals, so EARN IT will fail it's "honorable" goal 100%, while achieving its hidden goal (strip privacy from ordinary citizen). Also this will accelerate Splinternet. The future looks bleak, welcome to it.
- seemslegit 7y ago
  Why does it need them in the US ? - From what I understand section 230 protects a company from lawsuits related to content posted by their users, signal is not a content platform as it does person-to-person communication
  - Klonoar 7y ago
    Signal also doesn't retain the content, I believe, which... well, if it's more or less auto-killed, there's no argument, no? Note that I don't support doing away with Section 230, but I find this train of thought interesting.
  - vharuck 7y ago
    Section 230 isn't only for services that handle public posts. It covers any "interactive computer service" [0], which includes internet forums, internet messaging applications, ISPs, and even public libraries with public computers. Check out the cases in which judges cited section 230 [1]. https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=47-USC-1900800046-1237841278&term_occur=999&term_src=title:47:chapter:5:subchapter:II:part:I:section:230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=47... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
    - seemslegit 7y ago
      Thanks, the most relevant case for signal appears to be Delfino v. Agilent Technologies where imunity was upheld for an employer whose email system was used by an employee to send a threatening message. It seems strange for something like this to hinge on section 230 though, were emails providers liable for such things before it was passed ? What about cellular carriers for SMS content ?

World-wide? It doesn't. In US? it does. Also once Google will obey to out Signal from their store, usage will decrease (and is not a wide usage currently to begin with). Short-term effects? Power back to surveillance / power grabbers. They don't care about CSAM, they care about money/power. Long-term effects? Like dark web, Signal (or something similar) will be used mostly by criminals, so EARN IT will fail it's "honorable" goal 100%, while achieving its hidden goal (strip privacy from ordinary citizen). Also this will accelerate Splinternet. The future looks bleak, welcome to it.

seemslegit 7y ago
Why does it need them in the US ? - From what I understand section 230 protects a company from lawsuits related to content posted by their users, signal is not a content platform as it does person-to-person communication
- Klonoar 7y ago
  Signal also doesn't retain the content, I believe, which... well, if it's more or less auto-killed, there's no argument, no? Note that I don't support doing away with Section 230, but I find this train of thought interesting.
- vharuck 7y ago
  Section 230 isn't only for services that handle public posts. It covers any "interactive computer service" [0], which includes internet forums, internet messaging applications, ISPs, and even public libraries with public computers. Check out the cases in which judges cited section 230 [1]. https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=47-USC-1900800046-1237841278&term_occur=999&term_src=title:47:chapter:5:subchapter:II:part:I:section:230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=47... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
  - seemslegit 7y ago
    Thanks, the most relevant case for signal appears to be Delfino v. Agilent Technologies where imunity was upheld for an employer whose email system was used by an employee to send a threatening message. It seems strange for something like this to hinge on section 230 though, were emails providers liable for such things before it was passed ? What about cellular carriers for SMS content ?