4 ms·

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

by 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.

by sulam 6y ago

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.