4 ms·

Obviously I think the order is being done for the wrong reasons, and I doubt the text of it itself will do much to reign in big tech. But I think Trump inadvert

Obviously I think the order is being done for the wrong reasons, and I doubt the text of it itself will do much to reign in big tech. But I think Trump inadvertently stumbled into a good thing, as tech industry power must be curtailed. Trump is worried about conservative accounts being censored or shut down with no opportunity for appeal, for instance, but the very same demands for review may help people locked out by broken algorithmic systems on purely non-political errors. And fundamentally, it's way overdue that we stop giving tech companies immunity from prosecution for their platforms. Right now everyone is focused on using Section 230 as a carrot that requires tech companies do things to continue to receive it (EARN IT, etc.) but we really just need to remove it entirely.

anewdirection 6y ago
I agree, but there are many that object to anything the potus does by virtue of who he is, and what he stands for in thieir eyes. Its hard to argue in good faith with that camp. There are a few who think the status quo is fine. They are likely the same people making lots of money under the current arrangement and are having trouble seeing the forrest, but for the trees. I hope this helps at least open new opprotunities for social media whose likes we have never seen before. Both better curation and more open-ness are potentially up for grabs. Surely this is only an opprotunity to anyone with a sharp mind.
coffeefirst 6y ago
This isn't quite right. 230 is the thing that allows HN to moderate comments and submissions without immediately becoming legally responsible for every dumb thing we say. Not that it matters. Nobody seems to believe the administration can actually do this. And Twitter (or your personal forum) can continue to boot trolls, Nazis, or heads of state posting targeted harassment at widows, and do so in good faith all day long. What really happened is that the hard, valid questions about how much power social media companies have, how they should ensure free speech without enabling the worst elements of society, how appeals on moderation should work etc, just got sucked so deep into the screaming partisan meat grinder that there is now no chance of making any progress on them.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  > 230 is the thing that allows HN to moderate comments and submissions without immediately becoming legally responsible for every dumb thing we say. This definitely isn't true. The reality is that you are never automatically responsible for what someone else does. (It makes no sense!) Tech companies would like you to believe that Section 230 is some fundamental bedrock to the Internet, but it's not, it's just a get out of jail card for ad companies acting badly. > Nobody seems to believe the administration can actually do this. There's probably some manner of activity executive departments such as the FTC and FCC are capable of doing. Though it's definitely true that Congress-passed laws (unfortunately, including Section 230 of the CDA) stand above the regulatory power they have. But this order may be a precursor towards a larger push to scale back or (ideally) remove Section 230 in legislation. > just got sucked so deep into the screaming partisan meat grinder that there is now no chance of making any progress on them I actually disagree here. The vast majority of issues that require legislative attention aren't getting it because they're not loud enough to be put as conditions upon other things happening. Legislatively a lot of issues are at a complete standstill. But once it becomes a hot button issue, legislators are more likely to pack it in here or there until something moves on it.
  - wan23 6y ago
    You're not responsible for what someone else does, but you are responsible for what you do. If you accept a submission to your newspaper and publish it then you may be liable for any libelous claims because you are the one who published it. You think that HN is different because it automatically publishes anything anyone writes, but that perception isn't shared by many people who are old enough to remember a time before the World Wide Web.

anewdirection 6y ago

I agree, but there are many that object to anything the potus does by virtue of who he is, and what he stands for in thieir eyes. Its hard to argue in good faith with that camp. There are a few who think the status quo is fine. They are likely the same people making lots of money under the current arrangement and are having trouble seeing the forrest, but for the trees. I hope this helps at least open new opprotunities for social media whose likes we have never seen before. Both better curation and more open-ness are potentially up for grabs. Surely this is only an opprotunity to anyone with a sharp mind.

coffeefirst 6y ago

This isn't quite right. 230 is the thing that allows HN to moderate comments and submissions without immediately becoming legally responsible for every dumb thing we say. Not that it matters. Nobody seems to believe the administration can actually do this. And Twitter (or your personal forum) can continue to boot trolls, Nazis, or heads of state posting targeted harassment at widows, and do so in good faith all day long. What really happened is that the hard, valid questions about how much power social media companies have, how they should ensure free speech without enabling the worst elements of society, how appeals on moderation should work etc, just got sucked so deep into the screaming partisan meat grinder that there is now no chance of making any progress on them.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
> 230 is the thing that allows HN to moderate comments and submissions without immediately becoming legally responsible for every dumb thing we say. This definitely isn't true. The reality is that you are never automatically responsible for what someone else does. (It makes no sense!) Tech companies would like you to believe that Section 230 is some fundamental bedrock to the Internet, but it's not, it's just a get out of jail card for ad companies acting badly. > Nobody seems to believe the administration can actually do this. There's probably some manner of activity executive departments such as the FTC and FCC are capable of doing. Though it's definitely true that Congress-passed laws (unfortunately, including Section 230 of the CDA) stand above the regulatory power they have. But this order may be a precursor towards a larger push to scale back or (ideally) remove Section 230 in legislation. > just got sucked so deep into the screaming partisan meat grinder that there is now no chance of making any progress on them I actually disagree here. The vast majority of issues that require legislative attention aren't getting it because they're not loud enough to be put as conditions upon other things happening. Legislatively a lot of issues are at a complete standstill. But once it becomes a hot button issue, legislators are more likely to pack it in here or there until something moves on it.
- wan23 6y ago
  You're not responsible for what someone else does, but you are responsible for what you do. If you accept a submission to your newspaper and publish it then you may be liable for any libelous claims because you are the one who published it. You think that HN is different because it automatically publishes anything anyone writes, but that perception isn't shared by many people who are old enough to remember a time before the World Wide Web.