4 ms·

How would the law distinguish between reasonable moderation and unreasonable removal?

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
"Unreasonable removal" isn't actually much of a concern here under our current legal doctrine: As these companies are private entities, they can decide that they simply don't want this or that on their platform, and that can be as unreasonable as they like. Presumably, platforms which profit off user content have a financial incentive already to allow user content as much as they can, Section 230 only removes the financial incentive to remote bad content. Removing Section 230 will restore balance: Companies will still be motivated to keep as much non-abusive content as they can, but will face legal challenge if they fail to remove abusive content. (There's an argument to be made that Facebook and Google represent "public spaces" in the modern Internet era, but we currently have no legal precedent for applying first amendment rights to privately owned properties. Either we'd need a huge legal shift to apply the first amendment to private spaces or we'd need to nationalize online platforms.)
- IAmEveryone 7y ago
  > Section 230 only removes the financial incentive to remote bad content. Please go read the actual law. It’s neither long nor complicated. Section 230 corrected a problem in other law that made it dangerous to even attempt to moderate content. Before it became law, websites basically had to choose between not moderating at all, or assuming liability for all content. Hell, I’ll just quote the relevant part in full: (2) Civil liability 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;

"Unreasonable removal" isn't actually much of a concern here under our current legal doctrine: As these companies are private entities, they can decide that they simply don't want this or that on their platform, and that can be as unreasonable as they like. Presumably, platforms which profit off user content have a financial incentive already to allow user content as much as they can, Section 230 only removes the financial incentive to remote bad content. Removing Section 230 will restore balance: Companies will still be motivated to keep as much non-abusive content as they can, but will face legal challenge if they fail to remove abusive content. (There's an argument to be made that Facebook and Google represent "public spaces" in the modern Internet era, but we currently have no legal precedent for applying first amendment rights to privately owned properties. Either we'd need a huge legal shift to apply the first amendment to private spaces or we'd need to nationalize online platforms.)

IAmEveryone 7y ago
> Section 230 only removes the financial incentive to remote bad content. Please go read the actual law. It’s neither long nor complicated. Section 230 corrected a problem in other law that made it dangerous to even attempt to moderate content. Before it became law, websites basically had to choose between not moderating at all, or assuming liability for all content. Hell, I’ll just quote the relevant part in full: (2) Civil liability 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;