5 ms·

As they move into a “publisher” role, they will be liable in count.

root_axis 6y ago
You're wrong. Stop spreading misinformation. > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230)
- moralestapia 6y ago
  >You're wrong. Stop spreading misinformation. Be a bit more tolerant of other people's point of view. Anyway, I think you are misinterpreting the intention of that sentence. It basically means that, in principle, the behavior of being a "provider or user of an interactive computer service" does not imply that it is "the publisher or speaker of any information provided [...]". But that does not exempt them from potentially being the actual publisher, and all the rights/obligations that go with it. Trivial example: Someone publishing its work on the web (hence becoming a "user of an interactive computer service") does not imply that they lose copyright; even though they "shall [not] be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided [...]". Again, IANAL, but I read a lot of copyright, safe harbor law, DCMAs, etc... and it goes like that.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > Be a bit more tolerant of other people's point of view. Why would I tolerate a blatant falsehood? > that does not exempt them from being the actual publisher, and all the rights/obligations that go with it. With respect, you're totally misinformed. Social media websites do not fall under any kind of "publisher" obligation, this is a totally made up meme that people spread online. Now, if you want to argue that we should change the laws so that these websites would fall under some kind of publisher obligations, I would disagree, but that would at least allow room for "tolerance of other people's point of view". However, in terms of the actual law you and the parent are unequivocally incorrect.
    - moralestapia 6y ago
      >Social media websites do not fall under any kind of "publisher" obligation No one said they did. But also Section 230 does not imply that they're exempt of that, in the case they become such a thing. And remember that those rights/obligations are acquired the moment they are exercised. Consider the following: Twitter (the platform), on its official twitter account (on their own platform) decides to publish something which has legal repercussions. Are they exempt of them because of that statement on Section 230? No, not at all.
      - microtherion 6y ago
        To use a different example, somebody today used the New York Times web site: Section 230 gives them immunity for anything posted by randos in the comments to their articles, where they operate as a platform. Section 230 does NOT give the NYT immunity for anything in the articles themselves, where they operate as a publisher. However, absent S. 230 protection, those articles and their publisher still enjoy regular First Amendment protection, which is quite strong. In particular, there are nearly insurmountable obstacles for a public figure to win a defamation lawsuit in the US.
        triceratops 6y ago
        > Section 230 gives them immunity for anything posted by randos in the comments to their articles You're aware that comments on NYT articles are also human-moderated, yes?
        microtherion 6y ago
        Yes, and section 230 explicitly states that moderation does not waive that immunity: (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 [...] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
  - danShumway 6y ago
    > Anyway, I think you are misinterpreting the intention of that sentence. They're not wrong. Every single time Section 230 comes up, there's somebody here arguing that Section 230 doesn't actually mean that companies can choose who they want to censor without becoming a publisher. But it does. That was the explicit point of Section 230, and that's how Section 230 has played out in legal courts ever since it was established. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... ---- But of course, that entire debate about Section 230 is irrelevant here because Twitter hasn't censored anybody, and I haven't seen anyone give a clear reason why neutrality requirements on commentary wouldn't be outright unconstitutional, regardless of what Section 230 says.
    - moralestapia 6y ago
      I believe that you and root_axis (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331051) confusion arises from the lack of understanding of how Section 230 applies. From your own quoted source: "A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity: 1. [...] 2. [...] 3. The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue." The moment you create your own content (even if you are a content provider yourself) you lose the protection of Section 230 over that. Editing/policing content is, in most cases, akin to creating content. You cannot make a list of "staff picks" and then claim that the content comes from other sources. Putting that list together (even if you're just quoting somebody else) is equivalent to an action of creation, you are the creator of that list. You chose what to put in it and what to exclude. You ARE the original creator of this and Section 230 does not apply for you.
      - danShumway 6y ago
        > The moment you create your own content (even if you are a content provider yourself) you lose the protection of Section 230. No. Practically every social network and publisher creates their own content occasionally, yet there's plenty of precedent for companies like Google, Ebay, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook being protected under Section 230. A better, more accurate way of phrasing your objection would be to say, "Section 230 does not protect you from lawsuits over the specific content you created." So if Twitter's company-written annotation was found to be libel, they could of course be sued over that. But adding your own content to a forum/platform has no bearing on whether Section 230 applies more broadly to other content that you host. Take a deeper look at your example: > You cannot make a list of "staff picks" and then claim that the content comes from other sources This is exactly what Amazon, Apple, and Google Play do every day. And all of those platforms have been ruled to be protected by Section 230 in multiple lawsuits -- covering everything from trademark violations to defective products. The fact that Amazon has a "recommended brand" section does not mean that they are liable for everything that shows up on their store. And that's a principle that's held up in real courts over, and over, and over again. > Editing/policing content I don't want to keep beating the same horse, but that's not what Twitter did. They didn't edit Trump's tweet or restrict it, they added their own speech next to Trump's tweet. That has nothing to do with Section 230, it's just a generic, common case of 1st Ammendment protected counterspeech.
- belorn 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#Application_and_limits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... To sum up: If the platform becomes the "information content provider", defined as "any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information", then they loose the protection. The statute also excepts federal criminal liability and intellectual property claims. Creation or development of information can exclusively be moderation, as has been shown in copyright cases. Cutting (deciding what to show and what not to show), re-arrange or changing the context can create new original work, which would make the creator an information content provider for that. At the same time, doing either of those does not automatically cause the moderator to become a creator of original work. As lawyers like to say, it all depends on the details of the specific case. To take a extreme example outside of this twitter discussion, taking an video interview and cutting it to create a new narrative would make the editor responsible for that whole new version.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > can exclusively be moderation But not for the purposes of section 230. And there's significant precedent to this effect that you'd need a supreme Court ruling to change it.
    - belorn 6y ago
      Feel free to link to the supreme court ruling that has a precedent which proves that creating new derivative works does not result in the author becoming an information content provider. To take an fictional twitter example, blocking a user from a website is unlikely to create a derivative work. Removing a post in the middle of a twitter chain that makes up a story could change the narrative and content of that story, and if done intentionally would create a derivative work. The user could then sue twitter for copyright infringement, and if the new story is defamatory, under liability laws. We could for example imagine a rape story where the post that includeded the word "Stop" was removed, where the author would then have a legit legal claim against the moderation. It all depend on context, intent, and the details of a specific case. The tools of moderation does not define what is legal and what is not.

You're wrong. Stop spreading misinformation. > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230)

moralestapia 6y ago
>You're wrong. Stop spreading misinformation. Be a bit more tolerant of other people's point of view. Anyway, I think you are misinterpreting the intention of that sentence. It basically means that, in principle, the behavior of being a "provider or user of an interactive computer service" does not imply that it is "the publisher or speaker of any information provided [...]". But that does not exempt them from potentially being the actual publisher, and all the rights/obligations that go with it. Trivial example: Someone publishing its work on the web (hence becoming a "user of an interactive computer service") does not imply that they lose copyright; even though they "shall [not] be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided [...]". Again, IANAL, but I read a lot of copyright, safe harbor law, DCMAs, etc... and it goes like that.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > Be a bit more tolerant of other people's point of view. Why would I tolerate a blatant falsehood? > that does not exempt them from being the actual publisher, and all the rights/obligations that go with it. With respect, you're totally misinformed. Social media websites do not fall under any kind of "publisher" obligation, this is a totally made up meme that people spread online. Now, if you want to argue that we should change the laws so that these websites would fall under some kind of publisher obligations, I would disagree, but that would at least allow room for "tolerance of other people's point of view". However, in terms of the actual law you and the parent are unequivocally incorrect.
  - moralestapia 6y ago
    >Social media websites do not fall under any kind of "publisher" obligation No one said they did. But also Section 230 does not imply that they're exempt of that, in the case they become such a thing. And remember that those rights/obligations are acquired the moment they are exercised. Consider the following: Twitter (the platform), on its official twitter account (on their own platform) decides to publish something which has legal repercussions. Are they exempt of them because of that statement on Section 230? No, not at all.
    - microtherion 6y ago
      To use a different example, somebody today used the New York Times web site: Section 230 gives them immunity for anything posted by randos in the comments to their articles, where they operate as a platform. Section 230 does NOT give the NYT immunity for anything in the articles themselves, where they operate as a publisher. However, absent S. 230 protection, those articles and their publisher still enjoy regular First Amendment protection, which is quite strong. In particular, there are nearly insurmountable obstacles for a public figure to win a defamation lawsuit in the US.
      - triceratops 6y ago
        > Section 230 gives them immunity for anything posted by randos in the comments to their articles You're aware that comments on NYT articles are also human-moderated, yes?
        microtherion 6y ago
        Yes, and section 230 explicitly states that moderation does not waive that immunity: (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 [...] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
- danShumway 6y ago
  > Anyway, I think you are misinterpreting the intention of that sentence. They're not wrong. Every single time Section 230 comes up, there's somebody here arguing that Section 230 doesn't actually mean that companies can choose who they want to censor without becoming a publisher. But it does. That was the explicit point of Section 230, and that's how Section 230 has played out in legal courts ever since it was established. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... ---- But of course, that entire debate about Section 230 is irrelevant here because Twitter hasn't censored anybody, and I haven't seen anyone give a clear reason why neutrality requirements on commentary wouldn't be outright unconstitutional, regardless of what Section 230 says.
  - moralestapia 6y ago
    I believe that you and root_axis (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331051) confusion arises from the lack of understanding of how Section 230 applies. From your own quoted source: "A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity: 1. [...] 2. [...] 3. The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue." The moment you create your own content (even if you are a content provider yourself) you lose the protection of Section 230 over that. Editing/policing content is, in most cases, akin to creating content. You cannot make a list of "staff picks" and then claim that the content comes from other sources. Putting that list together (even if you're just quoting somebody else) is equivalent to an action of creation, you are the creator of that list. You chose what to put in it and what to exclude. You ARE the original creator of this and Section 230 does not apply for you.
    - danShumway 6y ago
      > The moment you create your own content (even if you are a content provider yourself) you lose the protection of Section 230. No. Practically every social network and publisher creates their own content occasionally, yet there's plenty of precedent for companies like Google, Ebay, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook being protected under Section 230. A better, more accurate way of phrasing your objection would be to say, "Section 230 does not protect you from lawsuits over the specific content you created." So if Twitter's company-written annotation was found to be libel, they could of course be sued over that. But adding your own content to a forum/platform has no bearing on whether Section 230 applies more broadly to other content that you host. Take a deeper look at your example: > You cannot make a list of "staff picks" and then claim that the content comes from other sources This is exactly what Amazon, Apple, and Google Play do every day. And all of those platforms have been ruled to be protected by Section 230 in multiple lawsuits -- covering everything from trademark violations to defective products. The fact that Amazon has a "recommended brand" section does not mean that they are liable for everything that shows up on their store. And that's a principle that's held up in real courts over, and over, and over again. > Editing/policing content I don't want to keep beating the same horse, but that's not what Twitter did. They didn't edit Trump's tweet or restrict it, they added their own speech next to Trump's tweet. That has nothing to do with Section 230, it's just a generic, common case of 1st Ammendment protected counterspeech.
belorn 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#Application_and_limits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... To sum up: If the platform becomes the "information content provider", defined as "any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information", then they loose the protection. The statute also excepts federal criminal liability and intellectual property claims. Creation or development of information can exclusively be moderation, as has been shown in copyright cases. Cutting (deciding what to show and what not to show), re-arrange or changing the context can create new original work, which would make the creator an information content provider for that. At the same time, doing either of those does not automatically cause the moderator to become a creator of original work. As lawyers like to say, it all depends on the details of the specific case. To take a extreme example outside of this twitter discussion, taking an video interview and cutting it to create a new narrative would make the editor responsible for that whole new version.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > can exclusively be moderation But not for the purposes of section 230. And there's significant precedent to this effect that you'd need a supreme Court ruling to change it.
  - belorn 6y ago
    Feel free to link to the supreme court ruling that has a precedent which proves that creating new derivative works does not result in the author becoming an information content provider. To take an fictional twitter example, blocking a user from a website is unlikely to create a derivative work. Removing a post in the middle of a twitter chain that makes up a story could change the narrative and content of that story, and if done intentionally would create a derivative work. The user could then sue twitter for copyright infringement, and if the new story is defamatory, under liability laws. We could for example imagine a rape story where the post that includeded the word "Stop" was removed, where the author would then have a legit legal claim against the moderation. It all depend on context, intent, and the details of a specific case. The tools of moderation does not define what is legal and what is not.