4 ms·

> No, and they wouldn't be by any informed understanding of the law. You are misinformed about the history of 230. 230 was proposed exactly because the law was

> No, and they wouldn't be by any informed understanding of the law. You are misinformed about the history of 230. 230 was proposed exactly because the law was interpreted the way you're saying it wouldn't be. From Wikipedia below, added emphasis mine: > This concern was raised by legal challenges against CompuServe and Prodigy, early service providers at this time. CompuServe stated they would not attempt to regulate what users posted on their services, while Prodigy had employed a team of moderators to validate content. Both faced legal challenges related to content posted by their users. In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users. However, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. found that as Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and legally responsible for libel committed by customers. > [...] > United States Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA) had read an article about the two cases and felt the decisions were backwards. "It struck me that if that rule was going to take hold then the internet would become the Wild West and nobody would have any incentive to keep the internet civil", Cox stated. --- It's become increasingly popular for people to say that Section 230 was a mistake. Usually they support that with claims that concerns about its repeal are purely theoretical fearmongering, despite the fact that we literally have case president on the books right now about what the Internet would look like without Section 230, and how the existing laws were being interpreted. When people raise concerns that without Section 230 the Internet would be divided up into completely unmoderated platforms and aggressively curated gatekeepers, that's not fearmongering. It's history. Ironically, the only websites that wouldn't be affected by a repeal of Section 230 are the completely unmoderated hellholes we want to discourage online, because they have Compuserve's precedent and the 1st Ammendment to hide behind.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
But in a world where we feel it was backwards that moderators were punished and unmoderated platforms weren't... Congress decided "let's just make everyone immune" was the right way to go? And again, I think the examples here are missing the same concept that Section 230 fails to recognize: Profit, as I discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22816016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22816016 It seems like the author of Section 230 failed to recognize we're in a capitalist society when this regulation was drafted. When platforms are taking a cut out of illegal activity, as Big Tech platforms do when they operate ad networks, courts would have to agree that any platform party, regardless of whether or not they currently moderate, should be held to some manner of responsibility. Right now, when an old lady clicks a Google search result for "mapquest", clicks the top link for "Maps Quest"[0] because Google ads aren't distinguishable from real search results to the untrained eye, is pushed to install a browser extension (from the Chrome Web Store) that hijacks her browser's new tab and search, injects malicious ads, and scrapes her private info to relay to an attacker, Google makes money. And is wholly protected by Section 230 for that activity and unable to be held responsible for refusing to delist the malicious ad. In what world is that the right legal position? [0] (This is a very real world example, I've done a lot of senior citizen tech support, and this is how 90% of them get owned.)
- IAmEveryone 7y ago
  That example has absolutely nothing to do with Sec 230. Google’s ad design is all on Google. If it were illegal, Sec 230 wouldn’t protect them. And while Google might be protected against liability for Mapquest’s business practices, Mapquest isn’t. If their behavior is harmful and illegal, they are liable.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    MapQuest did nothing wrong in this example. The problem is the fake sites that are taking the top spot in search results above the legitimate MapQuest link when you search Google for MapQuest, and Google refuses to delist them. And of course, Google lets people buy ads for other companies' trademarks, which is a whole different ball of issues. (MapQuest is a popular one for malicious sites to pretend to be because most of the people searching for it are seniors... they heard about it twenty years ago and then never moved on from searching for it when they want directions somewhere.)
    - spaced-out 7y ago
      What does this have to do with Section 230?
      - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
        The moment someone points out Google makes a huge amount of money on scams and malware, and due to Section 230, can't really be held responsible for it.
        bryan_w 7y ago
        Fining Google doesn't help the problem there, you would want to work with Google to find out who made the deceptive ad and deal with them so they can't continue on to hurt more people
        7y ago
saurik 7y ago
So this is the thing that is really confusing me: isn't Signal like CompuServe? Signal doesn't moderate my content and in fact can't; so why would a repeal of Section 230 matter to Signal? And like, yes: maybe the people at Signal personally care... but that's not how this article is written. I feel like most of the people who are super knee-jerk pro-230 are ignoring this precedent you have pointed to of CompuServe: if you build something that really and truly is a distribution platform, shouldn't that be OK?
- danShumway 7y ago
  I think so, at least in theory. In practice, I suspect that would eventually get challenged in court. But (IANAL), I also suspect that you're right, and a platform like Signal would fall under the same category as CompuServe and could make a strong argument for itself using that case. Here's where it gets tricky though -- Signal is kind of an anomaly, and there are a lot of platforms being built that both moderate content and incorporate E2E encryption. Matrix is the prime example, but even non-obvious platforms like Mastodon are talking about e2e encryption for DMs. To get a really good fediverse rolling, or even just to encourage platforms like Facebook to start using more zero-knowledge encryption, we need the ability to use E2E encryption alongside moderated content. Pure distribution platforms are rarer than people think. I'm not particularly worried that ending Section 230 will be a disaster for private, closed, encrypted channels. But most of the best parts of the Internet happen in public channels and semi-open communities, and getting rid of 230 would have a really big negative impact on the general discourse within those communities and the freedom of like-minded people to get together and form communities online without a fear of lawsuits. That being said, I think Signal does itself something of a disservice by not strongly asserting it's a pure distribution channel. They could talk about how this is dangerous for encryption overall while still advocating that the law wouldn't apply to someone in their position. We can simultaneously say that repealing Section 230 would be really bad for online communities, but not existentially bad for closed communication channels like Signal. And purely from a strategic point of view, we should be interested in saying things like that, because if Section 230 does get repealed it would be very nice to have a fallback position that's already been articulated and made clear to Congress and general audiences, and that preserves at least some encryption. But, Signal has their own set of real lawyers, so it may be that they disagree that CompuServe would apply, or it may be that they think that Congress would just keep challenging them until it found some attack that worked, or it may just be that they think aligning themselves alongside Open platforms like Matrix is more valuable than making a case that they would be exempt. I'm not going to pretend to know what's going through their minds.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

But in a world where we feel it was backwards that moderators were punished and unmoderated platforms weren't... Congress decided "let's just make everyone immune" was the right way to go? And again, I think the examples here are missing the same concept that Section 230 fails to recognize: Profit, as I discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22816016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22816016 It seems like the author of Section 230 failed to recognize we're in a capitalist society when this regulation was drafted. When platforms are taking a cut out of illegal activity, as Big Tech platforms do when they operate ad networks, courts would have to agree that any platform party, regardless of whether or not they currently moderate, should be held to some manner of responsibility. Right now, when an old lady clicks a Google search result for "mapquest", clicks the top link for "Maps Quest"[0] because Google ads aren't distinguishable from real search results to the untrained eye, is pushed to install a browser extension (from the Chrome Web Store) that hijacks her browser's new tab and search, injects malicious ads, and scrapes her private info to relay to an attacker, Google makes money. And is wholly protected by Section 230 for that activity and unable to be held responsible for refusing to delist the malicious ad. In what world is that the right legal position? [0] (This is a very real world example, I've done a lot of senior citizen tech support, and this is how 90% of them get owned.)

IAmEveryone 7y ago
That example has absolutely nothing to do with Sec 230. Google’s ad design is all on Google. If it were illegal, Sec 230 wouldn’t protect them. And while Google might be protected against liability for Mapquest’s business practices, Mapquest isn’t. If their behavior is harmful and illegal, they are liable.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  MapQuest did nothing wrong in this example. The problem is the fake sites that are taking the top spot in search results above the legitimate MapQuest link when you search Google for MapQuest, and Google refuses to delist them. And of course, Google lets people buy ads for other companies' trademarks, which is a whole different ball of issues. (MapQuest is a popular one for malicious sites to pretend to be because most of the people searching for it are seniors... they heard about it twenty years ago and then never moved on from searching for it when they want directions somewhere.)
  - spaced-out 7y ago
    What does this have to do with Section 230?
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      The moment someone points out Google makes a huge amount of money on scams and malware, and due to Section 230, can't really be held responsible for it.
      - bryan_w 7y ago
        Fining Google doesn't help the problem there, you would want to work with Google to find out who made the deceptive ad and deal with them so they can't continue on to hurt more people
        7y ago

saurik 7y ago

So this is the thing that is really confusing me: isn't Signal like CompuServe? Signal doesn't moderate my content and in fact can't; so why would a repeal of Section 230 matter to Signal? And like, yes: maybe the people at Signal personally care... but that's not how this article is written. I feel like most of the people who are super knee-jerk pro-230 are ignoring this precedent you have pointed to of CompuServe: if you build something that really and truly is a distribution platform, shouldn't that be OK?

danShumway 7y ago
I think so, at least in theory. In practice, I suspect that would eventually get challenged in court. But (IANAL), I also suspect that you're right, and a platform like Signal would fall under the same category as CompuServe and could make a strong argument for itself using that case. Here's where it gets tricky though -- Signal is kind of an anomaly, and there are a lot of platforms being built that both moderate content and incorporate E2E encryption. Matrix is the prime example, but even non-obvious platforms like Mastodon are talking about e2e encryption for DMs. To get a really good fediverse rolling, or even just to encourage platforms like Facebook to start using more zero-knowledge encryption, we need the ability to use E2E encryption alongside moderated content. Pure distribution platforms are rarer than people think. I'm not particularly worried that ending Section 230 will be a disaster for private, closed, encrypted channels. But most of the best parts of the Internet happen in public channels and semi-open communities, and getting rid of 230 would have a really big negative impact on the general discourse within those communities and the freedom of like-minded people to get together and form communities online without a fear of lawsuits. That being said, I think Signal does itself something of a disservice by not strongly asserting it's a pure distribution channel. They could talk about how this is dangerous for encryption overall while still advocating that the law wouldn't apply to someone in their position. We can simultaneously say that repealing Section 230 would be really bad for online communities, but not existentially bad for closed communication channels like Signal. And purely from a strategic point of view, we should be interested in saying things like that, because if Section 230 does get repealed it would be very nice to have a fallback position that's already been articulated and made clear to Congress and general audiences, and that preserves at least some encryption. But, Signal has their own set of real lawyers, so it may be that they disagree that CompuServe would apply, or it may be that they think that Congress would just keep challenging them until it found some attack that worked, or it may just be that they think aligning themselves alongside Open platforms like Matrix is more valuable than making a case that they would be exempt. I'm not going to pretend to know what's going through their minds.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]