3 ms·

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 platf

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from a strategic point of view, we should be interested in saying things like that, because if Section 230 does get repealed it would be very nice to have a fallback position that's already been articulated and made clear to Congress and general audiences, and that preserves at least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.

saurik 7y ago
I personally think you would be surprised at how much of what we currently have could continue to work in a world without Section 230. Right now, people are just taking a cheap shortcut of "let's just hire some moderators to moderate it", and enjoying it as it gives them control over narrative (letting them choose when to apply a firm hand in moderating and when to be lazy about it: there are just so many examples of companies abusing their moderation power in ways that have nothing to do with politics, along with issues of both subtle and not so subtle racism and misogyny--such as bans on photos of women breastfeeding--being perpetuated by the current system). I bet most of what we have right now could continue to work, albeit with pretty major architectural changes to the web... ones which admittedly might not still be conducive to large players extracting rent for hosting and organizing everything (maybe with more decentralized client-side mechanisms as opposed to centralized server-side mechanisms for helping people navigate content); and, what doesn't translate, was maybe not worth preserving in the first place. Either way, it seems to me like we should be having an honest conversation about the details of what we have and what we like and what we need to keep pulling it off, so we can figure out what the tradeoffs are, and this article from Signal equating a loss of Section 230 with somehow not being able to have end-to-end encryption is the exact opposite of that: it is more misinformation being thrown at an already giant mess of misunderstanding.
- danShumway 7y ago
  > I personally think you would be surprised at how much of what we currently have could continue to work in a world without Section 230 Hackernews wouldn't. I advocate for digital rights online; particularly the Right to Communicate[0]. But the Right to Communicate goes hand in hand with the Right to Filter[1]. Human moderation isn't a shortcut, it's the backbone of small, cozy forums and independent sites. Human moderation on a personalized scale is what makes smaller communities so much nicer than giant algorithmically curated platforms like Twitter or Youtube. The way we marry the Right to Filter and the Right to Communicate is with systems like the Fediverse that make it easy for people to form new communities on the fly, to join and leave existing communities without any pain or fuss, and to copy their content around or download it out of data silos whenever they'd like to. While we give users that convenience, we also recognize that communities have an inalienable right to organize themselves and filter the content that they host and see. In this way, the Right to Communicate and the Right to Filter reinforce each other, filling in the problematic gaps and abuses that either right would have in isolation. Section 230 is what makes that possible. Decentralization isn't magic. The law and the DOJ will attack community organizers and label them as publishers regardless of whether or not they are personally hosting the content in their communities. It doesn't matter what architecture you use; if you're going to have an open community someplace, that community needs to be able to enforce its own rules and norms. And Section 230 will make them liable if they attempt to do so. And even outside of the Fediverse, so much of the Internet matters. To hear you very lightly say something like: > and, what doesn't translate, was maybe not worth preserving in the first place I'm almost not sure how to respond to a claim like that. HN isn't worth preserving? IRC channels aren't worth preserving? Matrix isn't worth preserving? Self-publishing storefronts, independent forums, and comment sections on blogs aren't worth preserving? Email isn't worth preserving? > Signal equating a loss of Section 230 with somehow not being able to have end-to-end encryption For Signal, no, maybe not. For a lot of other services, including the vast majority of the Fediverse, yes. I think your reading of Signal's status as a distributor is pretty reasonable. But don't jump from that reading to saying that this won't have an impact on encryption. Signal is a zero-knowledge, closed communication platform. It's not decentralized, it has essentially no moderation of any kind, and it has no communities of any kind. An open community with its own norms, memes, and content standards is not zero-knowledge about the content it's hosting. A law that meant that only closed, blind systems like Signal could make use of E2E encryption wouldn't eliminate all encryption, but it would restrict a large number of platforms from using encryption to make themselves more private and more secure. [0]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-communicate https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-communicate [1]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-filter https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-filter

saurik 7y ago

I personally think you would be surprised at how much of what we currently have could continue to work in a world without Section 230. Right now, people are just taking a cheap shortcut of "let's just hire some moderators to moderate it", and enjoying it as it gives them control over narrative (letting them choose when to apply a firm hand in moderating and when to be lazy about it: there are just so many examples of companies abusing their moderation power in ways that have nothing to do with politics, along with issues of both subtle and not so subtle racism and misogyny--such as bans on photos of women breastfeeding--being perpetuated by the current system). I bet most of what we have right now could continue to work, albeit with pretty major architectural changes to the web... ones which admittedly might not still be conducive to large players extracting rent for hosting and organizing everything (maybe with more decentralized client-side mechanisms as opposed to centralized server-side mechanisms for helping people navigate content); and, what doesn't translate, was maybe not worth preserving in the first place. Either way, it seems to me like we should be having an honest conversation about the details of what we have and what we like and what we need to keep pulling it off, so we can figure out what the tradeoffs are, and this article from Signal equating a loss of Section 230 with somehow not being able to have end-to-end encryption is the exact opposite of that: it is more misinformation being thrown at an already giant mess of misunderstanding.

danShumway 7y ago
> I personally think you would be surprised at how much of what we currently have could continue to work in a world without Section 230 Hackernews wouldn't. I advocate for digital rights online; particularly the Right to Communicate[0]. But the Right to Communicate goes hand in hand with the Right to Filter[1]. Human moderation isn't a shortcut, it's the backbone of small, cozy forums and independent sites. Human moderation on a personalized scale is what makes smaller communities so much nicer than giant algorithmically curated platforms like Twitter or Youtube. The way we marry the Right to Filter and the Right to Communicate is with systems like the Fediverse that make it easy for people to form new communities on the fly, to join and leave existing communities without any pain or fuss, and to copy their content around or download it out of data silos whenever they'd like to. While we give users that convenience, we also recognize that communities have an inalienable right to organize themselves and filter the content that they host and see. In this way, the Right to Communicate and the Right to Filter reinforce each other, filling in the problematic gaps and abuses that either right would have in isolation. Section 230 is what makes that possible. Decentralization isn't magic. The law and the DOJ will attack community organizers and label them as publishers regardless of whether or not they are personally hosting the content in their communities. It doesn't matter what architecture you use; if you're going to have an open community someplace, that community needs to be able to enforce its own rules and norms. And Section 230 will make them liable if they attempt to do so. And even outside of the Fediverse, so much of the Internet matters. To hear you very lightly say something like: > and, what doesn't translate, was maybe not worth preserving in the first place I'm almost not sure how to respond to a claim like that. HN isn't worth preserving? IRC channels aren't worth preserving? Matrix isn't worth preserving? Self-publishing storefronts, independent forums, and comment sections on blogs aren't worth preserving? Email isn't worth preserving? > Signal equating a loss of Section 230 with somehow not being able to have end-to-end encryption For Signal, no, maybe not. For a lot of other services, including the vast majority of the Fediverse, yes. I think your reading of Signal's status as a distributor is pretty reasonable. But don't jump from that reading to saying that this won't have an impact on encryption. Signal is a zero-knowledge, closed communication platform. It's not decentralized, it has essentially no moderation of any kind, and it has no communities of any kind. An open community with its own norms, memes, and content standards is not zero-knowledge about the content it's hosting. A law that meant that only closed, blind systems like Signal could make use of E2E encryption wouldn't eliminate all encryption, but it would restrict a large number of platforms from using encryption to make themselves more private and more secure. [0]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-communicate https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-communicate [1]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-filter https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-filter