6 ms·

> The implications are fairly dramatic if this is legitimate and were to be adopted / executed. Can anyone give a tl;dr of what the implications actually are?

> The implications are fairly dramatic if this is legitimate and were to be adopted / executed. Can anyone give a tl;dr of what the implications actually are? Maybe I'm just tired, but I'm having a hard time parsing what this would actually do (beyond soothe Trump's feelings after getting called out by Twitter).

throwlaplace 6y ago
sections 2b and 4c are the action items; new fcc and ftc regulations that prevent this kind (or broadly whatever kind they deem relevant) of behavior.
sulam 6y ago
It would make them legally liable for the content posted on their sites. Today they can claim that they aren’t responsible for it, the posters are. If they are operating in an editorial capacity, that shield is removed.
- adventured 6y ago
  > It would make them legally liable for the content posted on their sites. Exactly as it should be. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and others, now that they're getting into the business of editorializing and dictating the truth as they see it via heavy-handed moderation, should be fully liable for all things posted to their platforms. It should apply to any large platform that makes that shift. It's perfectly fine if these platforms want to do that, and they should be held responsible accordingly. It'll restrict the size and activity of their networks, which will probably be a societal benefit. Twitter picked a fight they can't win. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Things will never return to the way they were before.
  - anyon 6y ago
    sorry to see you downvoted. People can disagree with your opinion but it is encouraging a debate. there is no god-given right for these companies to become monopolies. If this were to pass, it could break the monopolies: Decision 1: they choose to stop all moderation Out come 1: Advertisers ditch them because of all the objectionable content that will surely come. Decision 2: They choose to moderate, and take on the liability Outcome 2: Growing bigger becomes more costly and companies fall to some optimal 'Chandra Limit'
    - 2019-nCoV 6y ago
      Seppuku.
  - esoterica 6y ago
    Hacker News has active moderation and would be effectively illegal to operate if you made websites that practice moderation legally responsible for any illegal content posted by their users. If you really believe this is the right path to go down you should stop being a hypocrite and delete your HN account since you clearly believe HN has no right to exist in its current form.
    - trevyn 6y ago
      I support figuring out how to make Hacker News work without active moderation. It's simplistic to assume it can't be done.
      - cinquemb 6y ago
        Moderation by the users themselves could work, but that might not toe the line that HN wants to showcase (but may have to accept if they don't want to get sued and keep it running). On other platforms, advertiser may have to incentivize (monetarily or otherwise) users to post the kind of USG they want their ads nearby (assuming they still want to advertise on the platform).
      - mcphage 6y ago
        Usefull post. I bookmark this page. http://cialis.com http://cialis.com http://professional-online-generic-viagra.com http://professional-online-generic-viagra.com http://generic-cialis-purchase-levitra-viagra.com http://generic-cialis-purchase-levitra-viagra.com http://professional-online-buy-soft-buy-propecia-online.com http://professional-online-buy-soft-buy-propecia-online.com
    - 2019-nCoV 6y ago
      HN does not editorialise and haphazardly censor.
      - happytoexplain 6y ago
        To hear the laments of moderated users, you wouldn't think that. It all depends on whether its your opinion being subjected to any scrutiny.
- bawolff 6y ago
  That's what its intended to do, but i think what it would actually do is kind of debatable. America isn't a dictatorship (yet)
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    No but we are certainly a very litigious society and I'm sure there's an army of lawyers out there salivating over potential lawsuits against Twitter.
    - bawolff 6y ago
      I dont really understand US law, but isnt this just a statement of executive branch policy. Wouldn't this not affect the ability of private parties to sue? They were always able to use any argument they felt made sense.
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        I think on reading it again, you're correct. If 230c is challenged again and reinterpreted by the Supreme Court then maybe. On reading some of the recent cases and circuit court decisions on things like "failure to warn" maybe this entire legislation will be reworked in the next Congress. It probably needs some clarification.
daveevad 6y ago
primarily, just seems like the government's pulling the 230 protections offered online platforms "safe harbor" for their user's actions. presumably this opens up twitter to all sorts of liability, such as when a user uploads copyrighted or illegal materials. not an internet lawyer or anything but that's my take.
dpbriggs 6y ago
The twitter link above does a good job. Two most important things that stuck out to me is: 1. Platform vs Publisher. Alleges Twitter's fact checks to be editorial content, and thus does not benefit from platform protections. Ditto for other large tech companies. 2. Agencies need to review sites they advertise on and report on items including "viewpoint-based speech restrictions", and restrict funding if it is not "appropriate" for that agency's speech. Presumably a way to force companies to be friendlier to the sort of politics of the person who is making the report.
geofft 6y ago
Basically, - Unless they stop calling out Trump, they lose Section 230 protections. Section 230 is what allows a platform like Twitter or Hacker News to do limited good-faith moderation and not be deemed editorially responsible for every piece of nonsense someone tweets/posts that they don't get around to moderating. Without it, you either have to moderate heavily and get everything right, or not moderate at all. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... - pre-Section 230, CompuServe did no moderation and was ruled not responsible for libelous user comments, and Prodigy did and was ruled responsible for something they failed to moderate, and people went "Wait a second, this seems like the opposite of what we want.") The executive order says, roughly, that the behavior Trump doesn't like isn't permissible under Section 230 and makes you editorially responsible for everything, so if you enjoy your Section 230 protections, you can't do that. - The executive branch is discouraged from spending funds (i.e., buying ads) on platform that Trump doesn't like. - The FTC will go after these platforms for unfair trade practices. - The US attorney general will team up with state attorney generals to see if there's any state laws they can wield against these platforms too.
- trevyn 6y ago
  I think bringing back the CompuServe model would be a good thing. I remember the discussions being unusually free at the time, but was not aware that there was legal reasoning that enforced that freedom.
  - geofft 6y ago
    There's nothing prohibiting you from running a forum on the CompuServe model today - Section 230 permits a forum operator to moderate but does not require them to do so. There are less-moderated forums out there, but they see less popular in the free market. I think the main argument for Section 230 is it made no sense to legally require the CompuServe model - both CompuServe and Prodigy should have been free to operate as they were doing.
    - trevyn 6y ago
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Can anyone give a tl;dr of what the implications actually are? Were it allowed to be executed, the biggest implication is that the US has become an executive dictatorship where the laws adopted by Congress can be rewritten at whim by the executive (under the pretext of “clarification” that is 180° opposed to both the text and the actual intent of the law demonstrated by the legislative history), and the Constitutional order and structure of government is a dead letter, which absolutely dwarfs any policy implications.
- jki275 6y ago
  You care about that now?? I don’t remember the left up in arms about President Obama’s EOs.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > You care about that now?? Not just now, but yes. > I don’t remember the left up in arms about President Obama’s EOs I don't remember Obama issuing an EO directing agencies to issue “clarifying” regulations directly opposed to the text and clearly documented intent of the underlying statute (much less doing so for the express purpose of obstructing private actors exercise of free speech rights in direct retaliation for them not remaining silent about the falsity of Administration claims while actively relaying Administration propaganda containing false claims.) But that's neither here nor there, as I also do remember the left opposing a number of Obama’s executive actions on Constitutional and policy grounds. (Obama was no great friend of the left, being from the center-right—like all Democratic presidential nominees since at least Clinton, during whose tenure the center-right wing took dominant control of the party).
    - jki275 6y ago
      DACA? I mean if you think "left" means outright communism, I guess President Obama wasn't quite that far over, but he was certainly not "center" or "center-right" either.
      - 6y ago

throwlaplace 6y ago

sections 2b and 4c are the action items; new fcc and ftc regulations that prevent this kind (or broadly whatever kind they deem relevant) of behavior.

sulam 6y ago

It would make them legally liable for the content posted on their sites. Today they can claim that they aren’t responsible for it, the posters are. If they are operating in an editorial capacity, that shield is removed.

adventured 6y ago
> It would make them legally liable for the content posted on their sites. Exactly as it should be. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and others, now that they're getting into the business of editorializing and dictating the truth as they see it via heavy-handed moderation, should be fully liable for all things posted to their platforms. It should apply to any large platform that makes that shift. It's perfectly fine if these platforms want to do that, and they should be held responsible accordingly. It'll restrict the size and activity of their networks, which will probably be a societal benefit. Twitter picked a fight they can't win. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Things will never return to the way they were before.
- anyon 6y ago
  sorry to see you downvoted. People can disagree with your opinion but it is encouraging a debate. there is no god-given right for these companies to become monopolies. If this were to pass, it could break the monopolies: Decision 1: they choose to stop all moderation Out come 1: Advertisers ditch them because of all the objectionable content that will surely come. Decision 2: They choose to moderate, and take on the liability Outcome 2: Growing bigger becomes more costly and companies fall to some optimal 'Chandra Limit'
  - 2019-nCoV 6y ago
    Seppuku.
- esoterica 6y ago
  Hacker News has active moderation and would be effectively illegal to operate if you made websites that practice moderation legally responsible for any illegal content posted by their users. If you really believe this is the right path to go down you should stop being a hypocrite and delete your HN account since you clearly believe HN has no right to exist in its current form.
  - trevyn 6y ago
    I support figuring out how to make Hacker News work without active moderation. It's simplistic to assume it can't be done.
    - cinquemb 6y ago
      Moderation by the users themselves could work, but that might not toe the line that HN wants to showcase (but may have to accept if they don't want to get sued and keep it running). On other platforms, advertiser may have to incentivize (monetarily or otherwise) users to post the kind of USG they want their ads nearby (assuming they still want to advertise on the platform).
    - mcphage 6y ago
      Usefull post. I bookmark this page. http://cialis.com http://cialis.com http://professional-online-generic-viagra.com http://professional-online-generic-viagra.com http://generic-cialis-purchase-levitra-viagra.com http://generic-cialis-purchase-levitra-viagra.com http://professional-online-buy-soft-buy-propecia-online.com http://professional-online-buy-soft-buy-propecia-online.com
  - 2019-nCoV 6y ago
    HN does not editorialise and haphazardly censor.
    - happytoexplain 6y ago
      To hear the laments of moderated users, you wouldn't think that. It all depends on whether its your opinion being subjected to any scrutiny.
bawolff 6y ago
That's what its intended to do, but i think what it would actually do is kind of debatable. America isn't a dictatorship (yet)
- chrisco255 6y ago
  No but we are certainly a very litigious society and I'm sure there's an army of lawyers out there salivating over potential lawsuits against Twitter.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    I dont really understand US law, but isnt this just a statement of executive branch policy. Wouldn't this not affect the ability of private parties to sue? They were always able to use any argument they felt made sense.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      I think on reading it again, you're correct. If 230c is challenged again and reinterpreted by the Supreme Court then maybe. On reading some of the recent cases and circuit court decisions on things like "failure to warn" maybe this entire legislation will be reworked in the next Congress. It probably needs some clarification.

daveevad 6y ago

primarily, just seems like the government's pulling the 230 protections offered online platforms "safe harbor" for their user's actions. presumably this opens up twitter to all sorts of liability, such as when a user uploads copyrighted or illegal materials. not an internet lawyer or anything but that's my take.

dpbriggs 6y ago

The twitter link above does a good job. Two most important things that stuck out to me is: 1. Platform vs Publisher. Alleges Twitter's fact checks to be editorial content, and thus does not benefit from platform protections. Ditto for other large tech companies. 2. Agencies need to review sites they advertise on and report on items including "viewpoint-based speech restrictions", and restrict funding if it is not "appropriate" for that agency's speech. Presumably a way to force companies to be friendlier to the sort of politics of the person who is making the report.

geofft 6y ago

Basically, - Unless they stop calling out Trump, they lose Section 230 protections. Section 230 is what allows a platform like Twitter or Hacker News to do limited good-faith moderation and not be deemed editorially responsible for every piece of nonsense someone tweets/posts that they don't get around to moderating. Without it, you either have to moderate heavily and get everything right, or not moderate at all. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... - pre-Section 230, CompuServe did no moderation and was ruled not responsible for libelous user comments, and Prodigy did and was ruled responsible for something they failed to moderate, and people went "Wait a second, this seems like the opposite of what we want.") The executive order says, roughly, that the behavior Trump doesn't like isn't permissible under Section 230 and makes you editorially responsible for everything, so if you enjoy your Section 230 protections, you can't do that. - The executive branch is discouraged from spending funds (i.e., buying ads) on platform that Trump doesn't like. - The FTC will go after these platforms for unfair trade practices. - The US attorney general will team up with state attorney generals to see if there's any state laws they can wield against these platforms too.

trevyn 6y ago
I think bringing back the CompuServe model would be a good thing. I remember the discussions being unusually free at the time, but was not aware that there was legal reasoning that enforced that freedom.
- geofft 6y ago
  There's nothing prohibiting you from running a forum on the CompuServe model today - Section 230 permits a forum operator to moderate but does not require them to do so. There are less-moderated forums out there, but they see less popular in the free market. I think the main argument for Section 230 is it made no sense to legally require the CompuServe model - both CompuServe and Prodigy should have been free to operate as they were doing.
  - trevyn 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Can anyone give a tl;dr of what the implications actually are? Were it allowed to be executed, the biggest implication is that the US has become an executive dictatorship where the laws adopted by Congress can be rewritten at whim by the executive (under the pretext of “clarification” that is 180° opposed to both the text and the actual intent of the law demonstrated by the legislative history), and the Constitutional order and structure of government is a dead letter, which absolutely dwarfs any policy implications.

jki275 6y ago
You care about that now?? I don’t remember the left up in arms about President Obama’s EOs.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > You care about that now?? Not just now, but yes. > I don’t remember the left up in arms about President Obama’s EOs I don't remember Obama issuing an EO directing agencies to issue “clarifying” regulations directly opposed to the text and clearly documented intent of the underlying statute (much less doing so for the express purpose of obstructing private actors exercise of free speech rights in direct retaliation for them not remaining silent about the falsity of Administration claims while actively relaying Administration propaganda containing false claims.) But that's neither here nor there, as I also do remember the left opposing a number of Obama’s executive actions on Constitutional and policy grounds. (Obama was no great friend of the left, being from the center-right—like all Democratic presidential nominees since at least Clinton, during whose tenure the center-right wing took dominant control of the party).
  - jki275 6y ago
    DACA? I mean if you think "left" means outright communism, I guess President Obama wasn't quite that far over, but he was certainly not "center" or "center-right" either.
    - 6y ago