6 ms·

Plenty of people have complex opinions about 230, but it's a law that says, if you see a comment that defames you, sue the person who made it, it's got nothing

Plenty of people have complex opinions about 230, but it's a law that says, if you see a comment that defames you, sue the person who made it, it's got nothing to do with e.g. whoever runs the skateboarding forum. Who opposes this? It's just codifying the common sense understanding of the internet.

core-questions 7y ago
OK, so please do tell me how to sue `sk8rboy2020` on the forum then?
- Macha 7y ago
  How do you sue the guy that shouted at you as they left the restaurant? Who stuck a defamatory sign on the electric pole? I don't see why the issues these present should move responsibility to the restaurant or electric company, however.
  - Hnrobert42 7y ago
    A better analogy is a community bulletin board, like at a library. Just thinking aloud, what would I expect if my library’s bb was always covered in hate speech? Probably that the librarian would put it behind locked glass and moderate posts. Or take it down altogether. I’d hope for the former.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      If you put it behind locked glass, people are going to stop posting much of anything on that bulletin board. And dealing with the rest is going to take up too much of the librarian's time, distracting from other duties. It's a reasonable approach for official communications from the library, but not for a community forum.
  - GordonS 7y ago
    I don't think this is a good analogy. Someone shouting at you in a restaurant will be overheard by only a few people, and only in that instant. Someone publishing hurtful lies about you on the internet may be read by many, many people, and will be there on public record for years to come.
- hawkice 7y ago
  I mean, 230 doesn't entitle them to immunity to subpeonas for records about which IP address made a comment, and internet providers routinely translate those to real identities in response to valid legal requests. But that might work. Maybe they don't keep records. How do you sue defamatory information scrawled on a bathroom wall? Sometimes we don't have records for things. That's life.
- toast0 7y ago
  Sue John Doe, and ask the court to issue a subpoena to the forum for identifying information, and then to the ISP, and once you have that, add the account holder as a defendant to the suit. It's not fast, and it's not easy, but such is life.
  - core-questions 7y ago
    I'm really coming more from the perspective of valuing anonymity. I'd prefer a world where you simply can't sue the guy, and have to suck it up that people say things you don't like.
    - jojobas 7y ago
      It's all fine and dandy until somebody has it in with you and suddenly the first search result on your real name says you're a pedophile.
    - _faux_ 7y ago
      You may not have thought this through. Defamation isn't people saying things you don't like. It's people saying things which are untrue, and cost you your livelihood. You could invest a lifetime in building the respect of your peers only to have it snuffed out by a competitor running a smear campaign.
      - nybble41 7y ago
        Most of that is only a problem because of the underlying assumption that if it weren't true you'd sue the person saying it for defamation. Which really makes the problem worse in the cases where you can't sue, because the poster is outside your jurisdiction, you can't identify the poster, lawyers cost too much, etc. If anyone can post anything without repercussions, who would believe it without solid evidence?
      - core-questions 7y ago
        So like, for example, the pernicious doxxing of anyone who dares to question the left-liberal doctrine and loses their job via doxxing and social shame? I'm glad to know you're on-side with preventing that kind of defamation and smear campaign.
AgentME 7y ago
If I'm reading it right, the article agrees with you. It's saying that they want 230's protection, but the EARN IT act will take it away from people doing end-to-end protection like Signal.
chx 7y ago
In legal terms, Internet, especially commercial Internet is exceptional because of it is young and has unprecedented reach. Previously you could sue a paper for what they printed as it was thought obvious they will read and agree with whatever they print. And there was nothing compared to the Internet now.

core-questions 7y ago

OK, so please do tell me how to sue `sk8rboy2020` on the forum then?

Macha 7y ago
How do you sue the guy that shouted at you as they left the restaurant? Who stuck a defamatory sign on the electric pole? I don't see why the issues these present should move responsibility to the restaurant or electric company, however.
- Hnrobert42 7y ago
  A better analogy is a community bulletin board, like at a library. Just thinking aloud, what would I expect if my library’s bb was always covered in hate speech? Probably that the librarian would put it behind locked glass and moderate posts. Or take it down altogether. I’d hope for the former.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    If you put it behind locked glass, people are going to stop posting much of anything on that bulletin board. And dealing with the rest is going to take up too much of the librarian's time, distracting from other duties. It's a reasonable approach for official communications from the library, but not for a community forum.
- GordonS 7y ago
  I don't think this is a good analogy. Someone shouting at you in a restaurant will be overheard by only a few people, and only in that instant. Someone publishing hurtful lies about you on the internet may be read by many, many people, and will be there on public record for years to come.
hawkice 7y ago
I mean, 230 doesn't entitle them to immunity to subpeonas for records about which IP address made a comment, and internet providers routinely translate those to real identities in response to valid legal requests. But that might work. Maybe they don't keep records. How do you sue defamatory information scrawled on a bathroom wall? Sometimes we don't have records for things. That's life.
toast0 7y ago
Sue John Doe, and ask the court to issue a subpoena to the forum for identifying information, and then to the ISP, and once you have that, add the account holder as a defendant to the suit. It's not fast, and it's not easy, but such is life.
- core-questions 7y ago
  I'm really coming more from the perspective of valuing anonymity. I'd prefer a world where you simply can't sue the guy, and have to suck it up that people say things you don't like.
  - jojobas 7y ago
    It's all fine and dandy until somebody has it in with you and suddenly the first search result on your real name says you're a pedophile.
  - _faux_ 7y ago
    You may not have thought this through. Defamation isn't people saying things you don't like. It's people saying things which are untrue, and cost you your livelihood. You could invest a lifetime in building the respect of your peers only to have it snuffed out by a competitor running a smear campaign.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      Most of that is only a problem because of the underlying assumption that if it weren't true you'd sue the person saying it for defamation. Which really makes the problem worse in the cases where you can't sue, because the poster is outside your jurisdiction, you can't identify the poster, lawyers cost too much, etc. If anyone can post anything without repercussions, who would believe it without solid evidence?
    - core-questions 7y ago
      So like, for example, the pernicious doxxing of anyone who dares to question the left-liberal doctrine and loses their job via doxxing and social shame? I'm glad to know you're on-side with preventing that kind of defamation and smear campaign.

AgentME 7y ago

If I'm reading it right, the article agrees with you. It's saying that they want 230's protection, but the EARN IT act will take it away from people doing end-to-end protection like Signal.

chx 7y ago

In legal terms, Internet, especially commercial Internet is exceptional because of it is young and has unprecedented reach. Previously you could sue a paper for what they printed as it was thought obvious they will read and agree with whatever they print. And there was nothing compared to the Internet now.