3 ms·

Or have congress roll back Section 230. If online publishers were held to the same libel standards as print publishers this problem would be instantly fixed. h

Or have congress roll back Section 230. If online publishers were held to the same libel standards as print publishers this problem would be instantly fixed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communica...

Fjolsvith 6y ago
It might not be instantly fixed, but everyone would know where things belonged.
vharuck 6y ago
230 covers a lot of situations. For example, it has been cited by a judge who ruled in favor a library, which was the defendant[0]. This protected the library's choice to let patrons use the internet on library computers. It's summarized in the Wikipedia article you shared. If 230 disappears, I don't see how any websites would allow user comments. I really don't see how we'd have any websites where user content is the service's value (Pinterest, recipe sharing sites, LinkedIn, Reddit). [0] http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/kathleenr/20010306op.asp http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/kathleenr/20010306op.as... Edited: removed repeated sentence
- austincheney 6y ago
  > I really don't see how we'd have any websites where user content is the service's value (Pinterest, recipe sharing sites, LinkedIn, Reddit). There are a number of ways to go about moderation. The change would be minimal, or none, for sites that already apply a good faith strict moderation effort and horrid for sites that supply the minimal moderation required by criminal law.
rswail 6y ago
So who do you hold responsible for the publishing of your comment? YC? @dang? Yourself? If it's one of the first two, your comment will be queued and reviewed by one of the many editors that YC will pay for to review each individual comment to ensure it does not incur liability on their part for publication. /s
- austincheney 6y ago
  Yes, user submissions would be reviewed to ensure compliance with a publishers terms and conditions. But then so much of the content on HN is always frequently reviewed for policy compliance.

Fjolsvith 6y ago

It might not be instantly fixed, but everyone would know where things belonged.

vharuck 6y ago

230 covers a lot of situations. For example, it has been cited by a judge who ruled in favor a library, which was the defendant[0]. This protected the library's choice to let patrons use the internet on library computers. It's summarized in the Wikipedia article you shared. If 230 disappears, I don't see how any websites would allow user comments. I really don't see how we'd have any websites where user content is the service's value (Pinterest, recipe sharing sites, LinkedIn, Reddit). [0] http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/kathleenr/20010306op.asp http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/kathleenr/20010306op.as... Edited: removed repeated sentence

austincheney 6y ago
> I really don't see how we'd have any websites where user content is the service's value (Pinterest, recipe sharing sites, LinkedIn, Reddit). There are a number of ways to go about moderation. The change would be minimal, or none, for sites that already apply a good faith strict moderation effort and horrid for sites that supply the minimal moderation required by criminal law.

rswail 6y ago

So who do you hold responsible for the publishing of your comment? YC? @dang? Yourself? If it's one of the first two, your comment will be queued and reviewed by one of the many editors that YC will pay for to review each individual comment to ensure it does not incur liability on their part for publication. /s

austincheney 6y ago
Yes, user submissions would be reviewed to ensure compliance with a publishers terms and conditions. But then so much of the content on HN is always frequently reviewed for policy compliance.