4 ms·

That is the debate over Sec 230 though, with many people saying that if a platform wants to enjoy the immunity granted under sec 230 they need to be neutral,

by syshum 6y ago

That is the debate over Sec 230 though, with many people saying that if a platform wants to enjoy the immunity granted under sec 230 they need to be neutral, failure to do so means they lose that Sec 230 Immunity. This would mean any moderation makes them liable as a publisher as under current law if you do not have Sec 230 immunity then the only other way to avoid liability to not do any moderation at all of user generated content (or to prohibit user generated content)

pjc50 6y ago
> any moderation makes them liable as a publisher Quite a lot of moderation is required either by law or other forms of liability. And then you have the international jurisdiction question: if a social media platform removes posts to comply with French or German anti-Nazi law, or UK defamation law, does that make them liable under s230?
- syshum 6y ago
  >> international jurisdiction question: Those should only apply to users accessing from those nations It is a complex issue for a global company for sure, but I do not want the internet to be censored down to the lowest common denominator of Government regulations. A Person in nation X should not have to be censored under the laws of nation Y
rsynnott 6y ago
> with many people saying that if a platform wants to enjoy the immunity granted under sec 230 they need to be neutral, failure to do so means they lose that Sec 230 Immunity. Who's saying that? That's very much not what section 230 says. And as a change to the law to do this would eliminate all social networks (along with newspaper comment sections and similar) it is highly unlikely to ever go anywhere.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
elliekelly 6y ago
Section 230 is essentially about the ability to quote someone else without fact checking or taking responsibility for what was said. It has nothing to do with neutrality and never had anything to do with neutrality until recent efforts to manufacture outrage started conflating Section 230 and the entirely unrelated concept of free speech.
- syshum 6y ago
  Wholly incorrect, Sec 230 was in direct response to 2 lawsuits and mainly in respond to Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co It was not about "quoting someonelse" As far as recent efforts to "manufacture outrage" one would have to be completely bias or willfully ignorant to not see the clear political bias that is shown by silicon valley in the modern area of politics Many of these companies have executives in power that have publicly stated their desire to manipulate the election in favor of their political ideology Aside from that normal everyday moderation has a clear political bias to it. So I do not believe the outrage is "manufactured" at all
  - bobwaycott 6y ago
    > Many of these companies have executives in power that have publicly stated their desire to manipulate the election in favor of their political ideology Which companies? Which executives? Do you have links to public statements made stating they want to manipulate the election?
ashtonkem 6y ago
None of what you said is actually true; Section 230 does not in any way require neutrality in order to gain its protections. The law is very clear about this, and the courts have been very clear about this. Heck, we’ve been over this before on HN multiple times this past week; 230 does not require neutrality.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > Section 230 does not in any way require neutrality in order to gain its protections. The law is very clear about this This only makes sense, since a neutral platform enjoys immunity from responsibility for user content independently of section 230.
- syshum 6y ago
  Well the current debate is on if it SHOULD not if it does The secondary debate is on if the FCC has the legal authority to make a rule that it does or if that would have to come from congress My personal opinion is that Congress should amend the CDA to state that any Public Company that wants to be considered a platform under 230 should be required to follow the First amendment of the US Constitution as if they were a governmental agency in their moderation policies for United States based Users. This would still allow them to moderate illegal, violent, and other content, but prohibit political bias that is rampant on all the major platforms
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    > Well the current debate is on if it SHOULD not if it does Then say that instead of saying that 230 means they “need” to be neutral. As far as “should”, the answer is a hard no. It is not wise or prudent to inject the government into regulation of private speech to achieve short term political aims. And yes, your plan is an attempt to regulate speech, snuck in via the back door. You would give the government the ability to decide which forms of protected speech receive extra special protections, creating a 3 tiered system. It is wholly unconstitutional, and represents a massive growth in governmental power. Hard pass.
    - 6y ago

by syshum 6y ago

pjc50 6y ago

> any moderation makes them liable as a publisher Quite a lot of moderation is required either by law or other forms of liability. And then you have the international jurisdiction question: if a social media platform removes posts to comply with French or German anti-Nazi law, or UK defamation law, does that make them liable under s230?

syshum 6y ago
>> international jurisdiction question: Those should only apply to users accessing from those nations It is a complex issue for a global company for sure, but I do not want the internet to be censored down to the lowest common denominator of Government regulations. A Person in nation X should not have to be censored under the laws of nation Y

rsynnott 6y ago

> with many people saying that if a platform wants to enjoy the immunity granted under sec 230 they need to be neutral, failure to do so means they lose that Sec 230 Immunity. Who's saying that? That's very much not what section 230 says. And as a change to the law to do this would eliminate all social networks (along with newspaper comment sections and similar) it is highly unlikely to ever go anywhere.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

elliekelly 6y ago

Section 230 is essentially about the ability to quote someone else without fact checking or taking responsibility for what was said. It has nothing to do with neutrality and never had anything to do with neutrality until recent efforts to manufacture outrage started conflating Section 230 and the entirely unrelated concept of free speech.

syshum 6y ago
Wholly incorrect, Sec 230 was in direct response to 2 lawsuits and mainly in respond to Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co It was not about "quoting someonelse" As far as recent efforts to "manufacture outrage" one would have to be completely bias or willfully ignorant to not see the clear political bias that is shown by silicon valley in the modern area of politics Many of these companies have executives in power that have publicly stated their desire to manipulate the election in favor of their political ideology Aside from that normal everyday moderation has a clear political bias to it. So I do not believe the outrage is "manufactured" at all
- bobwaycott 6y ago
  > Many of these companies have executives in power that have publicly stated their desire to manipulate the election in favor of their political ideology Which companies? Which executives? Do you have links to public statements made stating they want to manipulate the election?

ashtonkem 6y ago

None of what you said is actually true; Section 230 does not in any way require neutrality in order to gain its protections. The law is very clear about this, and the courts have been very clear about this. Heck, we’ve been over this before on HN multiple times this past week; 230 does not require neutrality.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
> Section 230 does not in any way require neutrality in order to gain its protections. The law is very clear about this This only makes sense, since a neutral platform enjoys immunity from responsibility for user content independently of section 230.
syshum 6y ago
Well the current debate is on if it SHOULD not if it does The secondary debate is on if the FCC has the legal authority to make a rule that it does or if that would have to come from congress My personal opinion is that Congress should amend the CDA to state that any Public Company that wants to be considered a platform under 230 should be required to follow the First amendment of the US Constitution as if they were a governmental agency in their moderation policies for United States based Users. This would still allow them to moderate illegal, violent, and other content, but prohibit political bias that is rampant on all the major platforms
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  > Well the current debate is on if it SHOULD not if it does Then say that instead of saying that 230 means they “need” to be neutral. As far as “should”, the answer is a hard no. It is not wise or prudent to inject the government into regulation of private speech to achieve short term political aims. And yes, your plan is an attempt to regulate speech, snuck in via the back door. You would give the government the ability to decide which forms of protected speech receive extra special protections, creating a 3 tiered system. It is wholly unconstitutional, and represents a massive growth in governmental power. Hard pass.
  - 6y ago