17 ms·

Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections

132 points by justindocanto 6y ago

merricksb 6y ago
https://archive.md/ZvSGe https://archive.md/ZvSGe
save_ferris 6y ago
In a nutshell, this would require congressional approval to pass. Both parties have expressed desire to alter the current legal protections that internet firms have, but it’s not clear if there will be a bipartisan consensus on what this change will look like if/when formal bills are introduced.
BelleOfTheBall 6y ago
Ah, seeking to mess with Section 230 again, just like with the EARN It Act. Any company that stays headquartered in the USA if this passes is just begging for trouble.
- seemslegit 6y ago
  Pray tell where should such a company go ?
  - Communitivity 6y ago
    Ireland looks good, at least on paper. I'm attached to the U.S., but if I was looking at relocating to Ireland I'd want to talk to people I knew who are on the ground there, or at least friends of friends who are. A puff piece, but has some interesting tidbits: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shourjyasanyal/2018/11/27/is-ireland-really-a-startup-nation/#bb03eb445566 https://www.forbes.com/sites/shourjyasanyal/2018/11/27/is-ir...
    - seemslegit 6y ago
      And I suppose you have done research on the Irish legal system, its liability protections for 3rd party content providers, its jurisprudence on hate speech, defamation and libel ? (hint: it's part of the EU)
      - Communitivity 6y ago
        I have not, and never claimed I did. I said it looks good on paper. A number of sources have said it is startup friendly. If the EU's laws are so burdensome, why is there a thriving startup ecosystem in the EU? I have read about EU's stances on hate speech, defamation, and libel (though I wouldn't call that hobby reading research), and I am fine with their stances. I think we could use more hate speech protection, when I see reports that as much as 60% of the tweets in the current U.S. political conversations are done by biased bots. And no, I am firmly against EARN IT and the other 230 attacks. We need internet legislation that is thoughtful, created by technical SME staffers and constitutional law SME staffers, not broad-brush legislation pandering to votes, FUD, or special interests.
        seemslegit 6y ago
        > If the EU's laws are so burdensome, why is there a thriving startup ecosystem in the EU? I have read about EU's stances on hate speech, defamation, and libel (though I wouldn't call that hobby reading research), and I am fine with their stances. There is nothing particularly thriving about it. There are just a lot of them because it costs almost nothing to incorporate a company and 'startup' sounds cooler than a 'small consulting business' or a 'software house'. Can you name many EU startups that IPOd or got acquired for an impressive amount during the last decade or were even considered "unicorns" at any point by anyone other than themselves ? In any case, Section 230 isn't about startups per se but specifically about 3rd party content providers - know any such companies that are EU-based ? > I think we could use more hate speech protection, when I see reports that as much as 60% of the tweets in the current U.S. political conversations are done by biased bots. Have you considered the possibility of those reports being disseminated by biased bots ? > And no, I am firmly against EARN IT and the other 230 attacks. We need internet legislation that is thoughtful, created by technical SME staffers and constitutional law SME staffers, not broad-brush legislation pandering to votes, FUD, or special interests. You sound confused. How do you expect those hate speech protections to materialize if not by modifying or cancelling Section 230 ? I mean there's always the option of cancelling the 1st amendment - no one seems to like that pesky thing anyway today.
  - InfiniteRand 6y ago
    Switzerland seems to be a popular choice, curious if there any big negatives there (business-wise)
    - seemslegit 6y ago
      Well for one it's a super expensive country and the cost of doing business is huge, but we aren't talking about general business-friendliness rather about a very specific set of legal protections provided by Section 230 enabling the business models of facebook, twitter, google, reddit et al. I don't know the specifics of Swiss legal system in that regard but the fact that nothing similar ever came out of there probably says something.
- snarf21 6y ago
  That's what makes laws like this so silly. Look at how companies split into pieces to avoid corporate tax. They'll simply do the same here. Such a waste of time and effort and it really only affects the small companies which don't have this problem anyway. So dumb.
  - seemslegit 6y ago
    Yeah all those dumb secretaries, presidents, senators and the people who work for them, they really ought to be reading more HN to learn about how things work. Unless of course any company whose viability materially depends on Section 230 protections would have been dead in the water pretty much in any other jurisdiction on earth in the first place, the threat of moving out of the US was a naked bluff and the powers that be realized it.
    - scohesc 6y ago
      Yep. If companies are willing to put up with the Chinese government telling them what to do, what to say, and how to operate their business in China, I'm pretty sure America will be fine.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      They have a lengthy history of technically illiterate demagoguery and utterly idiotic statements about it while only paying attention to what their lobbyists feed them.
      - seemslegit 6y ago
        What does this have to do with technical literacy ? They're not writing an RFC and there's nothing technical about section 230 of the communication decency act.
- fredthomsen 6y ago
  so funny considering the history of 230 and how prodigy was the inspiration for it because they modded user posts
- cletus 6y ago
  That really doesn't change anything. If you want to do business in the US (and everyone does) then you're subject to US laws. "Jurisdiction" here is simply a question of how a country defines it and is willing and able to prosecute it. For example, if two US citizens on US soil discuss insider trading of an Australian company that does not even do business in the US using trades on US brokers, those two individuals are in violation of the Australian Corporations Act and can be criminally prosecuted (by Australian authorities). Why? Because Australia claims jurisdiction over any Australian company. Likewise, "sex tourism" with children in South East Asia is rampant and many countries are unwilling or unable to prosecute. Australia has deemed having sex with an underage person in a foreign country is likewise a crime in Australia that they can and do prosecute. The US is able to to exercise a lot of power with international banks because they have the power to remove a financial institution's access to the US banking system. It's this stick that allowed the IRS to go after Swiss banks for complicity in US citizens evading US taxes.
- jimbob45 6y ago
  The GDPR was objectively far more consequential and I don’t recall a mass exodus of companies from the EU.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    There weren't that many companies to exodus to begin with. But I'm not even in the EU and I do still encounter GDPR "access denied" type pages from time to time from US sites.
scarface74 6y ago
And this is all because the President got mad at Twitter on the right and the left always think more government is the answer. This is what happens when you get government involvement in tech.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  No. Nothing is ever this simple. Even cursory search would show that this is an ongoing saga linked to LEOs displeasure with encryption. I am not a fan of Trump personally, but no reason to let it cloud your judgment.
  - nojito 6y ago
    That's just one scenario. The more broader one is tech companies refusing to adhere to preventing federal crimes from being committed on their platforms. At the end of the day, it's expensive to police your platform so they went with the immunity route.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      You are right. Even parent post is right in a sense that there multiple reasons. I think your explanation covers tech sector perspective ( they are in a sweet spot now and don't want to lose it ). I maintain that the main reason it is happening is the steady push to make policing easy again.
    - salawat 6y ago
      They're a platform, andaren'taspecifically vested law enforcement organization. Think about it. What you're really asking for there is for these companies to become part of the apparatus, which means by definition they can no longer be seen as private businesses and arguably, become unfit to do anything on. Imagine a world where law enforcement is given access to an oracle by tech companies capable of spelling out every individual who broke any law in any jurisdiction at anytime, anywhere today, so long as they use the platform. If you don't already feel uncomfortable, or see why that would impact the desirability/feasibility of the system already, you're probably not trying very hard. You're basically handing law enforcement a tool capable of handing reign of the country over to the auspices of prosecutorial discretion. The one thing that has kept LE in check has always been the high price tag of due process involved with depriving someone of their rights. This means it is strongly confined to only that potential pool of people that generally meet the criteria for clear and present threats to society (your agreement as to the priorities over time may beg to differ, bit the point is it is fundamentally limited to a very small fraction of the population). With the integration possible through tech, you cannot afford to happily hand over records in digital format. It is simply too bloody dangerous a tool in the wrong hands. Furthermore, no one wants to accept that sometimes societal goods are bundled with the empowerment of bad use cases since malicious actors are equally buoyed by societal infrastructure. I don't see people clamoring for TV manufacturers to start recording the inside of homes because there may be pedophiles in them. I don't see people swarming in droves to say "eavesdrop and surveil me" once they know that is essentially what goes on in tech. No one wants that. They grudgingly accept it because no one else wants to or can figure out how to implement something without that that also allows the type of information propagation people actually want, which is for people they want to know more about them to have greater access, and the rest to actually require substantial effort to get at that information.
nojito 6y ago
>The Justice Department also will seek to make clear that tech platforms don’t have immunity in civil enforcement actions brought by the federal government, and can’t use immunity as a defense against antitrust claims that they removed content for anticompetitive reasons. Oh boy...the costs of running Google, Twitter, Facebook and others... will quintuple overnight when Congress passes this.
- adventured 6y ago
  It's wonderful to see the price of censorship by colluding monopolies is going to skyrocket. I can't wait until the fines start raining down. They'll have earned every cent of the financial damages. The arrogant, biased platforms picked a fight they can't win with half the political power in the US. This rapid, broad shift is why Larry and Sergey ran for the hills not long ago, abandoning Alphabet as fast as possible; they saw what was coming (including the anti-trust investigations). I bet they destroyed as much of their internal communication history as possible as well (legally of course, probably), so it can't be used against them or the company.
  - pavlov 6y ago
    It’s surreal that a popular Republican position now is: “We want the government to impose giant fines and new regulations on the most successful American businesses of the past decade, hopefully destroying them.” Regardless of the merits of the idea, it’s an amazing paradigm shift for the GOP.
    - SauciestGNU 6y ago
      And seemingly all because these platforms deign to accurately represent how much opposition there is to the Republican agenda.
    - LegitShady 6y ago
      Hint: this isn't new regulation, this is rolling back a regulation that is defending these publishers pretending to be platforms.
akersten 6y ago
Can someone who supports "let's hold internet platforms responsible for what their users do on their platform" explain how that's any different than "let's hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?" I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable fantasies.
- arkades 6y ago
  You don't see the difference between "let's hold companies responsible for what people do as part of utilizing their services, while utilizing their services" and "let's hold companies responsible for what people do with an item they have purchased once entirely out of the supervision of that company, without any possible oversight or control"? I can't hold a skateboard co. responsible for what people do with skateboards they've purchased. I can most certainly hold a skate park responsible for what happens in the skate park.
  - akersten 6y ago
    No, I really don't see the difference, because the service here is the product. The service is not a place of accommodation like a skate park. "Company makes thing, people do bad with thing, hold Company responsible" is a scary line of thought, and that's exact same scenario for both Facebook and guns. "Thing hurts person using it" is closer to your skate park analogy, and yeah, in that case, of course Company should be responsible for making a bad thing.
  - belltaco 6y ago
    By that logic you would hold the phone company responsible for calls and texts happening over their network.
    - 0134340 6y ago
      Someone correct me if wrong but I think phone co's can get away with it as they're deemed an information carrier instead of a host. Besides, calls and texts are rather benign, it's visual media that tends to attract the most calls for censorship, not to also mention that real-time censorship of text and voice would be infeasible but much more viable for an information/media host.
throwawaygh 6y ago
I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that Section 230 protections should come with some sort of obligation to allow free speech. However, the actual policy proposals for replacing Section 230 are all outright dystopian. Josh Hawley, in particular, is NOT a free speech advocate. His problem with Facebook/Tiwtter is perceived liberal bias, and the alternatives to Section 230 that he suggests are 100% about wrestling editorial oversight away from one class (tech CEOs) and then giving it to another (a politically-appointed board). Does anyone have a good proposal for how to go about reforming Section 230 in a way that's workable and values free speech?
- ch4s3 6y ago
  > some sort of obligation to allow free speech Isn’t that the opposite of what the text of the law says? Doesn’t it provide for protection when moderate content that “one may find objectionable”, which could basically be anything.
  - notahacker 6y ago
    The text of the law is a mess: it gives content providers the ability to define whatever moderation policy they want, but also gives objectors the right to sue for punitive damages in the event that they disagree with how it is applied, with their claims being judged by an whether they uphold undefined 'fair dealing standards'. It's not so much an attempt to defend free speech as to bury the affected companies in litigation if their moderation policies aren't either nonexistent or up front and aggressive: exactly the situation Section 230 was written to avoid. It's just in this case the lawsuits will come from the parties seeking to cause offence rather than the offended.
    - ch4s3 6y ago
      I can see how it could be read that way, but are content providers really buried in litigation in practice? I actually don't have much insight here personally, so I'm quite curious.
      - 6y ago
bcrosby95 6y ago
Be careful of what you ask for. Section 230 exists because the courts punished Prodigy because they tried to moderate their forums but did it imperfectly, but didn't punish CompuServe because they let anything go. The idea is to allow imperfect moderation in addition to both zero and perfect moderation. The internet without section 230 isn't a bastion of internet freedom. It's 4chan and 8chan. It's a shithole.
- ooobit2 6y ago
  It's a shithole with it too. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr, Twitch, the list goes on. Every single bad thing we've dealt with since 2010 has been started or exacerbated not even by the existence of these platforms, but by the way they've been managed, and the protections Section 230 has given them against any liability. This protection needed to be pulled when Twitch banned Hong Kong players. It needed to be pulled when Google agreed with the PRC to provide a backdoor into users' searches in China. Zuckerberg should be rotting in jail for the Facebook platform's policies... policies that have enabled election fraud, made child trafficking and pornography more accessible and easier to hide. We aren't even dealing with the worst of it. I have first-hand knowledge that one of telecom providers in India and South Asia has been trying for years to get out from under agreements it signed with Facebook that went south. These platforms have played a huge role in expanding substance abuse, tobacco use, and crime in youth elsewhere in the world. They get away with accountability because of crap policies like Section 230. At the very least, there needs to be a quick path to prosecution and regulation. 4chan is bad, but go to Twitter's company page and look at the organizations they are working with on their policies. Every single one is a progressive, special interest group. JK Rowling should be enough proof that the circle of approvable persons will eventually close in and exclude you too, and for a stupidly heinous reason, like, humans who lick their balls are just as domestic as any dog... or John Oliver is actually funny. You know, something real offensive.
  - nothisisamerica 6y ago
    Start your own platform. Have the government run it. Compete using tax dollars. Here's one system you could use to run your own platform where you make all of the editorial decisions, you pay for all of the moderation, and you pay for the fallout from attempts to manipulate public opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon_(software)
ybav 6y ago
Congratulations Twitter! You improved the Internet in the same way as the Internet Archive by pushing too far. Hope you are satisfied with all that awesome power.
sdwedq 6y ago
I agree. I used to believe in absolute freedom of speech on the web. But then people start sending goatsx or whatever as joke in emails. I learned to avoid opening any links form certain friends. MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter was nice clean space to hangout for a while. Then horrible and traumatic pictures and videos start showing up in my feed. I know the world is horrible place but I don't need constant reminder about it. I unfollowed as many people as I can. Now as a parent, I cannot constantly monitor these supposedly safe sites. I have seen disgusting or violent videos on YouTube for Kids, Amazon Videos aimed at kids, and even some kids shows on Netflix. These platform should be responsible for the content they host, no matter who uploaded. That would be one way to clean up flith. That's why I will pay for cable TV again and let someone moderate content for me.
- g-b-r 6y ago
  There are filters for kids and indeed it wouldn't be bad in any way if there were various filters on Youtube, Facebook etc., they just ought to be voluntary (or at most imposed by one's parents). And... this isn't going to change "kids shows on Netflix"...
snuxoll 6y ago
I don’t see this passing constitutional muster. You have a right to free speech as do corporations - you can be ejected from a privately owned building for saying things the owner doesn’t agree with, the same applies to online platforms. This is a open and shut first amendment case.
- hiram112 6y ago
  Not even close to open and shut. You realize that an editorial posted on the NYTimes or Fox News site can get them sued for libel or defamation, right? This does, in fact, happen all the time. Read about several of the left leaning cable networks and their lawsuit with the 'Covington Kids'. They are a publisher, and are responsible for their content. Google, Twitter, Reddit, etc. acted like platforms for many years, same as the telecoms, and nobody ever complained. Look at how much influence and cash they have. What could possibly cause them to risk this gold mine? Donald Trump became president, and the liberal companies and employees in Silicon Valley / West Coast lost their nerve and resorted to censorship, decided to use their 'platforms' as their own private political tools. Oops... Now they can enjoy the same restrictions that other publishers have always had to deal with. Hopefully their shareholders realize the source of the issue, and boot the activist executives and employees, as it's now going to cost them a lot of money, all of which they brought on themselves. * https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-settles-libel-lawsuit-with-covington-catholic-student/2020/01/07/f0b21842-319e-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-settles-l...
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    > as it's now going to cost them a lot of money As one of those shareholders, from a purely profit-motive, I'm not so sure that replacing 230 with something more onerous would be a net negative. Moats are expensive, but also valuable.
  - vangelis 6y ago
    Should I be able to sue YC when Hackernews commenters say something objectionable? That Paul G money sounds nice.
mudil 6y ago
When social media firms ban conservative voices, they need to be sued for interference with interstate commerce. Because that's what it is.
- charwalker 6y ago
  I'm experimenting with Markdown in this comment and may edit to reformat links better. Actual comment: Specifically when conservative voices are banned or a voice of any leaning? If a voice, right or left, tweets supporting hate or violence should that be removed with equal prejudice or left in place regardless? If it's a left wing voice posting bannable content 9/10 times, is that unfairly banning/censoring of left wing voices or simply the ratio that such ban-able content occurs? Does that cross over into publisher status? I don't think so. I ask as the outrage over specifically conservative voices being censored has less to do with reality and more to do with loud people wanting attention as the bias against them is [mostly made-up](https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/440703-evidence-contradicts-right-wing-narrative-of-tech-censorship-and-bias https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/440703-evidence-contr...). There isn't censorship targeting right wing comments, just removal of extremist comments that often catch vocal right wing groups MORE OFTEN than left wing voices. There are loud people on the right (and some on the left) spouting misinformation, disinformation, debunked conspiracy theories (think QAnon), or outright threats and lies. These loud people and groups, when their content is removed, get more loud and right wing media platforms embrace this because it feeds on a common [Persecution Complex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion) that is largely non existent and often linked directly to some level of what some call privilege (White/Rich/establishment/etc). Yes, there are left wing media platofrmas that do the same but they are not in any way as close to the audience size as Fox News. They aren't even 'news' as in October of 2018, they [specifically noted in their ToS they are entertainment](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/). If you're getting the idea that banning of conservative voices is censorship from any voice/commentator hosted by Fox News, that's not news, it's entertainment! I mean, look at this [summary of legal cases](https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/27/21272066/social-media-bias-laura-loomer-larry-klayman-twitter-google-facebook-loss https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/27/21272066/social-media-bia...). The majority are from conservatives with 1 item from a democrat and most are quickly struck down as the complain is founded on an inaccurate idea of the first amendment, namely that the users rights were not infringed and the lawsuit attacked the platforms rights! The platform has the right to not let you use it for your inaccurate, biased, or even malicious content. You are not infringed upon by being removed from that platform for those issues specifically or likely for anything the platform deems is against their ToS or rules. In r/conservative, this means any dissent from the established norm, even just pointing out polling data that invalidates the headline, is an immediate ban. That's allowed by Reddit and not under the jurisdiction of the government. It's not lawsuit worthy either. My rights aren't being infringed if a subreddit wants to be an echo chamber of misinformation protected by heavy censorship. There is some schadenfreude when that sub complains of censorship of right wing voices but rejects any sources stating it's not reflective of reality. As a comparison, consider how climate science is presented across media. 99% of scientists agree Climate Change is aggravated by human activity and something we need to tackle; so does the Pentagon. 1% are the counter voices saying it isn't an issue or human activity is not a factor. These sides are then presented as equal (which is misinformation) and given equal weight like debated 1v1, not 99v1 like in reality. Same thing for right wing voices and voters across the US, [they are a minority](https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx). 25% of those polled identify with the GOP even though the GOP holds more than 51% of seats in the Senate and after the 2016 election held more than 51% in the House for that term. When this minority holding a majority is 'attacked', everyone on connected outlets is going to hear about that (remember on some platforms this is entertainment, not news). That's basically the commentators first amendment right to protest the ban and definitely allowed under free speech. That doesn't mean it's an accurate portrayal of reality just like the censorship of right wing voices _seems_ biased but really isn't. In both cases, the minority is extremely vocal and active disguising (or simply ignoring) data stating otherwise. Conflict, even artificial, drives clicks and revenue and that's what entertainment is all about. My bigger question is how is this interference with interstate commerce? I could see that argument applied to an influencer or commentator who is removed from their primary platform. If they lost revenue they may even have standing. But that still isn't an issue for Twitter, you can be removed from any platform you don't own and should always have your own site and system set up for hosting your content. That's preached by internet first media groups since YouTube rose to prominence. But it isn't a violation of interstate commerce.
neonate 6y ago
https://archive.vn/YnYJT https://archive.vn/YnYJT
joshuamorton 6y ago
Perhaps the most important line from the article: > The Justice Department proposal is a legislative plan that would have to be adopted by Congress.
- timmytokyo 6y ago
  This is an important point. Given that Congress is divided between the two parties, the chances of something like this becoming law are zero. So why is the proposal being made? It's a presidential election year, and the president is working the refs, trying to scare them away from anything that might make it even a little bit harder for him to get his "message" out.
s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
Direct link to the bill: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Limiting-Section-230-Immunity-to-Good-Samaritans-Act.pdf https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Li...
Nasrudith 6y ago
I wonder if the colloquial understanding of platforms and ownership got bad for reasons even aside from the blatant propaganda of special interests. Back in even the 90s and 00s even the dim bulbs responding to other dim bulbs like Yahoo or AOL doing dumb stuff like shutting down child molestation victim support group channels from ham-handed attempts to try to moderate didn't lead to any idiots thinking that the government should somehow punish them even though it was rightfully called stupid and morally wrong. Was it because they actually understood the internet existed as many small sites as well as the big names?

132 points by justindocanto 6y ago

https://archive.md/ZvSGe https://archive.md/ZvSGe

In a nutshell, this would require congressional approval to pass. Both parties have expressed desire to alter the current legal protections that internet firms have, but it’s not clear if there will be a bipartisan consensus on what this change will look like if/when formal bills are introduced.

BelleOfTheBall 6y ago

Ah, seeking to mess with Section 230 again, just like with the EARN It Act. Any company that stays headquartered in the USA if this passes is just begging for trouble.

seemslegit 6y ago
Pray tell where should such a company go ?
- Communitivity 6y ago
  Ireland looks good, at least on paper. I'm attached to the U.S., but if I was looking at relocating to Ireland I'd want to talk to people I knew who are on the ground there, or at least friends of friends who are. A puff piece, but has some interesting tidbits: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shourjyasanyal/2018/11/27/is-ireland-really-a-startup-nation/#bb03eb445566 https://www.forbes.com/sites/shourjyasanyal/2018/11/27/is-ir...
  - seemslegit 6y ago
    And I suppose you have done research on the Irish legal system, its liability protections for 3rd party content providers, its jurisprudence on hate speech, defamation and libel ? (hint: it's part of the EU)
    - Communitivity 6y ago
      I have not, and never claimed I did. I said it looks good on paper. A number of sources have said it is startup friendly. If the EU's laws are so burdensome, why is there a thriving startup ecosystem in the EU? I have read about EU's stances on hate speech, defamation, and libel (though I wouldn't call that hobby reading research), and I am fine with their stances. I think we could use more hate speech protection, when I see reports that as much as 60% of the tweets in the current U.S. political conversations are done by biased bots. And no, I am firmly against EARN IT and the other 230 attacks. We need internet legislation that is thoughtful, created by technical SME staffers and constitutional law SME staffers, not broad-brush legislation pandering to votes, FUD, or special interests.
      - seemslegit 6y ago
        > If the EU's laws are so burdensome, why is there a thriving startup ecosystem in the EU? I have read about EU's stances on hate speech, defamation, and libel (though I wouldn't call that hobby reading research), and I am fine with their stances. There is nothing particularly thriving about it. There are just a lot of them because it costs almost nothing to incorporate a company and 'startup' sounds cooler than a 'small consulting business' or a 'software house'. Can you name many EU startups that IPOd or got acquired for an impressive amount during the last decade or were even considered "unicorns" at any point by anyone other than themselves ? In any case, Section 230 isn't about startups per se but specifically about 3rd party content providers - know any such companies that are EU-based ? > I think we could use more hate speech protection, when I see reports that as much as 60% of the tweets in the current U.S. political conversations are done by biased bots. Have you considered the possibility of those reports being disseminated by biased bots ? > And no, I am firmly against EARN IT and the other 230 attacks. We need internet legislation that is thoughtful, created by technical SME staffers and constitutional law SME staffers, not broad-brush legislation pandering to votes, FUD, or special interests. You sound confused. How do you expect those hate speech protections to materialize if not by modifying or cancelling Section 230 ? I mean there's always the option of cancelling the 1st amendment - no one seems to like that pesky thing anyway today.
- InfiniteRand 6y ago
  Switzerland seems to be a popular choice, curious if there any big negatives there (business-wise)
  - seemslegit 6y ago
    Well for one it's a super expensive country and the cost of doing business is huge, but we aren't talking about general business-friendliness rather about a very specific set of legal protections provided by Section 230 enabling the business models of facebook, twitter, google, reddit et al. I don't know the specifics of Swiss legal system in that regard but the fact that nothing similar ever came out of there probably says something.
snarf21 6y ago
That's what makes laws like this so silly. Look at how companies split into pieces to avoid corporate tax. They'll simply do the same here. Such a waste of time and effort and it really only affects the small companies which don't have this problem anyway. So dumb.
- seemslegit 6y ago
  Yeah all those dumb secretaries, presidents, senators and the people who work for them, they really ought to be reading more HN to learn about how things work. Unless of course any company whose viability materially depends on Section 230 protections would have been dead in the water pretty much in any other jurisdiction on earth in the first place, the threat of moving out of the US was a naked bluff and the powers that be realized it.
  - scohesc 6y ago
    Yep. If companies are willing to put up with the Chinese government telling them what to do, what to say, and how to operate their business in China, I'm pretty sure America will be fine.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    They have a lengthy history of technically illiterate demagoguery and utterly idiotic statements about it while only paying attention to what their lobbyists feed them.
    - seemslegit 6y ago
      What does this have to do with technical literacy ? They're not writing an RFC and there's nothing technical about section 230 of the communication decency act.
fredthomsen 6y ago
so funny considering the history of 230 and how prodigy was the inspiration for it because they modded user posts
cletus 6y ago
That really doesn't change anything. If you want to do business in the US (and everyone does) then you're subject to US laws. "Jurisdiction" here is simply a question of how a country defines it and is willing and able to prosecute it. For example, if two US citizens on US soil discuss insider trading of an Australian company that does not even do business in the US using trades on US brokers, those two individuals are in violation of the Australian Corporations Act and can be criminally prosecuted (by Australian authorities). Why? Because Australia claims jurisdiction over any Australian company. Likewise, "sex tourism" with children in South East Asia is rampant and many countries are unwilling or unable to prosecute. Australia has deemed having sex with an underage person in a foreign country is likewise a crime in Australia that they can and do prosecute. The US is able to to exercise a lot of power with international banks because they have the power to remove a financial institution's access to the US banking system. It's this stick that allowed the IRS to go after Swiss banks for complicity in US citizens evading US taxes.
jimbob45 6y ago
The GDPR was objectively far more consequential and I don’t recall a mass exodus of companies from the EU.
- thu2111 6y ago
  There weren't that many companies to exodus to begin with. But I'm not even in the EU and I do still encounter GDPR "access denied" type pages from time to time from US sites.

scarface74 6y ago

And this is all because the President got mad at Twitter on the right and the left always think more government is the answer. This is what happens when you get government involvement in tech.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
No. Nothing is ever this simple. Even cursory search would show that this is an ongoing saga linked to LEOs displeasure with encryption. I am not a fan of Trump personally, but no reason to let it cloud your judgment.
- nojito 6y ago
  That's just one scenario. The more broader one is tech companies refusing to adhere to preventing federal crimes from being committed on their platforms. At the end of the day, it's expensive to police your platform so they went with the immunity route.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    You are right. Even parent post is right in a sense that there multiple reasons. I think your explanation covers tech sector perspective ( they are in a sweet spot now and don't want to lose it ). I maintain that the main reason it is happening is the steady push to make policing easy again.
  - salawat 6y ago
    They're a platform, andaren'taspecifically vested law enforcement organization. Think about it. What you're really asking for there is for these companies to become part of the apparatus, which means by definition they can no longer be seen as private businesses and arguably, become unfit to do anything on. Imagine a world where law enforcement is given access to an oracle by tech companies capable of spelling out every individual who broke any law in any jurisdiction at anytime, anywhere today, so long as they use the platform. If you don't already feel uncomfortable, or see why that would impact the desirability/feasibility of the system already, you're probably not trying very hard. You're basically handing law enforcement a tool capable of handing reign of the country over to the auspices of prosecutorial discretion. The one thing that has kept LE in check has always been the high price tag of due process involved with depriving someone of their rights. This means it is strongly confined to only that potential pool of people that generally meet the criteria for clear and present threats to society (your agreement as to the priorities over time may beg to differ, bit the point is it is fundamentally limited to a very small fraction of the population). With the integration possible through tech, you cannot afford to happily hand over records in digital format. It is simply too bloody dangerous a tool in the wrong hands. Furthermore, no one wants to accept that sometimes societal goods are bundled with the empowerment of bad use cases since malicious actors are equally buoyed by societal infrastructure. I don't see people clamoring for TV manufacturers to start recording the inside of homes because there may be pedophiles in them. I don't see people swarming in droves to say "eavesdrop and surveil me" once they know that is essentially what goes on in tech. No one wants that. They grudgingly accept it because no one else wants to or can figure out how to implement something without that that also allows the type of information propagation people actually want, which is for people they want to know more about them to have greater access, and the rest to actually require substantial effort to get at that information.

nojito 6y ago

>The Justice Department also will seek to make clear that tech platforms don’t have immunity in civil enforcement actions brought by the federal government, and can’t use immunity as a defense against antitrust claims that they removed content for anticompetitive reasons. Oh boy...the costs of running Google, Twitter, Facebook and others... will quintuple overnight when Congress passes this.

adventured 6y ago
It's wonderful to see the price of censorship by colluding monopolies is going to skyrocket. I can't wait until the fines start raining down. They'll have earned every cent of the financial damages. The arrogant, biased platforms picked a fight they can't win with half the political power in the US. This rapid, broad shift is why Larry and Sergey ran for the hills not long ago, abandoning Alphabet as fast as possible; they saw what was coming (including the anti-trust investigations). I bet they destroyed as much of their internal communication history as possible as well (legally of course, probably), so it can't be used against them or the company.
- pavlov 6y ago
  It’s surreal that a popular Republican position now is: “We want the government to impose giant fines and new regulations on the most successful American businesses of the past decade, hopefully destroying them.” Regardless of the merits of the idea, it’s an amazing paradigm shift for the GOP.
  - SauciestGNU 6y ago
    And seemingly all because these platforms deign to accurately represent how much opposition there is to the Republican agenda.
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    Hint: this isn't new regulation, this is rolling back a regulation that is defending these publishers pretending to be platforms.

akersten 6y ago

Can someone who supports "let's hold internet platforms responsible for what their users do on their platform" explain how that's any different than "let's hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?" I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable fantasies.

arkades 6y ago
You don't see the difference between "let's hold companies responsible for what people do as part of utilizing their services, while utilizing their services" and "let's hold companies responsible for what people do with an item they have purchased once entirely out of the supervision of that company, without any possible oversight or control"? I can't hold a skateboard co. responsible for what people do with skateboards they've purchased. I can most certainly hold a skate park responsible for what happens in the skate park.
- akersten 6y ago
  No, I really don't see the difference, because the service here is the product. The service is not a place of accommodation like a skate park. "Company makes thing, people do bad with thing, hold Company responsible" is a scary line of thought, and that's exact same scenario for both Facebook and guns. "Thing hurts person using it" is closer to your skate park analogy, and yeah, in that case, of course Company should be responsible for making a bad thing.
- belltaco 6y ago
  By that logic you would hold the phone company responsible for calls and texts happening over their network.
  - 0134340 6y ago
    Someone correct me if wrong but I think phone co's can get away with it as they're deemed an information carrier instead of a host. Besides, calls and texts are rather benign, it's visual media that tends to attract the most calls for censorship, not to also mention that real-time censorship of text and voice would be infeasible but much more viable for an information/media host.

throwawaygh 6y ago

I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that Section 230 protections should come with some sort of obligation to allow free speech. However, the actual policy proposals for replacing Section 230 are all outright dystopian. Josh Hawley, in particular, is NOT a free speech advocate. His problem with Facebook/Tiwtter is perceived liberal bias, and the alternatives to Section 230 that he suggests are 100% about wrestling editorial oversight away from one class (tech CEOs) and then giving it to another (a politically-appointed board). Does anyone have a good proposal for how to go about reforming Section 230 in a way that's workable and values free speech?

ch4s3 6y ago
> some sort of obligation to allow free speech Isn’t that the opposite of what the text of the law says? Doesn’t it provide for protection when moderate content that “one may find objectionable”, which could basically be anything.
- notahacker 6y ago
  The text of the law is a mess: it gives content providers the ability to define whatever moderation policy they want, but also gives objectors the right to sue for punitive damages in the event that they disagree with how it is applied, with their claims being judged by an whether they uphold undefined 'fair dealing standards'. It's not so much an attempt to defend free speech as to bury the affected companies in litigation if their moderation policies aren't either nonexistent or up front and aggressive: exactly the situation Section 230 was written to avoid. It's just in this case the lawsuits will come from the parties seeking to cause offence rather than the offended.
  - ch4s3 6y ago
    I can see how it could be read that way, but are content providers really buried in litigation in practice? I actually don't have much insight here personally, so I'm quite curious.
    - 6y ago

bcrosby95 6y ago

Be careful of what you ask for. Section 230 exists because the courts punished Prodigy because they tried to moderate their forums but did it imperfectly, but didn't punish CompuServe because they let anything go. The idea is to allow imperfect moderation in addition to both zero and perfect moderation. The internet without section 230 isn't a bastion of internet freedom. It's 4chan and 8chan. It's a shithole.

ooobit2 6y ago
It's a shithole with it too. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr, Twitch, the list goes on. Every single bad thing we've dealt with since 2010 has been started or exacerbated not even by the existence of these platforms, but by the way they've been managed, and the protections Section 230 has given them against any liability. This protection needed to be pulled when Twitch banned Hong Kong players. It needed to be pulled when Google agreed with the PRC to provide a backdoor into users' searches in China. Zuckerberg should be rotting in jail for the Facebook platform's policies... policies that have enabled election fraud, made child trafficking and pornography more accessible and easier to hide. We aren't even dealing with the worst of it. I have first-hand knowledge that one of telecom providers in India and South Asia has been trying for years to get out from under agreements it signed with Facebook that went south. These platforms have played a huge role in expanding substance abuse, tobacco use, and crime in youth elsewhere in the world. They get away with accountability because of crap policies like Section 230. At the very least, there needs to be a quick path to prosecution and regulation. 4chan is bad, but go to Twitter's company page and look at the organizations they are working with on their policies. Every single one is a progressive, special interest group. JK Rowling should be enough proof that the circle of approvable persons will eventually close in and exclude you too, and for a stupidly heinous reason, like, humans who lick their balls are just as domestic as any dog... or John Oliver is actually funny. You know, something real offensive.
- nothisisamerica 6y ago
  Start your own platform. Have the government run it. Compete using tax dollars. Here's one system you could use to run your own platform where you make all of the editorial decisions, you pay for all of the moderation, and you pay for the fallout from attempts to manipulate public opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon_(software)

ybav 6y ago

Congratulations Twitter! You improved the Internet in the same way as the Internet Archive by pushing too far. Hope you are satisfied with all that awesome power.

sdwedq 6y ago

I agree. I used to believe in absolute freedom of speech on the web. But then people start sending goatsx or whatever as joke in emails. I learned to avoid opening any links form certain friends. MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter was nice clean space to hangout for a while. Then horrible and traumatic pictures and videos start showing up in my feed. I know the world is horrible place but I don't need constant reminder about it. I unfollowed as many people as I can. Now as a parent, I cannot constantly monitor these supposedly safe sites. I have seen disgusting or violent videos on YouTube for Kids, Amazon Videos aimed at kids, and even some kids shows on Netflix. These platform should be responsible for the content they host, no matter who uploaded. That would be one way to clean up flith. That's why I will pay for cable TV again and let someone moderate content for me.

g-b-r 6y ago
There are filters for kids and indeed it wouldn't be bad in any way if there were various filters on Youtube, Facebook etc., they just ought to be voluntary (or at most imposed by one's parents). And... this isn't going to change "kids shows on Netflix"...

snuxoll 6y ago

I don’t see this passing constitutional muster. You have a right to free speech as do corporations - you can be ejected from a privately owned building for saying things the owner doesn’t agree with, the same applies to online platforms. This is a open and shut first amendment case.

hiram112 6y ago
Not even close to open and shut. You realize that an editorial posted on the NYTimes or Fox News site can get them sued for libel or defamation, right? This does, in fact, happen all the time. Read about several of the left leaning cable networks and their lawsuit with the 'Covington Kids'. They are a publisher, and are responsible for their content. Google, Twitter, Reddit, etc. acted like platforms for many years, same as the telecoms, and nobody ever complained. Look at how much influence and cash they have. What could possibly cause them to risk this gold mine? Donald Trump became president, and the liberal companies and employees in Silicon Valley / West Coast lost their nerve and resorted to censorship, decided to use their 'platforms' as their own private political tools. Oops... Now they can enjoy the same restrictions that other publishers have always had to deal with. Hopefully their shareholders realize the source of the issue, and boot the activist executives and employees, as it's now going to cost them a lot of money, all of which they brought on themselves. * https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-settles-libel-lawsuit-with-covington-catholic-student/2020/01/07/f0b21842-319e-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-settles-l...
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > as it's now going to cost them a lot of money As one of those shareholders, from a purely profit-motive, I'm not so sure that replacing 230 with something more onerous would be a net negative. Moats are expensive, but also valuable.
- vangelis 6y ago
  Should I be able to sue YC when Hackernews commenters say something objectionable? That Paul G money sounds nice.

mudil 6y ago

When social media firms ban conservative voices, they need to be sued for interference with interstate commerce. Because that's what it is.

charwalker 6y ago
I'm experimenting with Markdown in this comment and may edit to reformat links better. Actual comment: Specifically when conservative voices are banned or a voice of any leaning? If a voice, right or left, tweets supporting hate or violence should that be removed with equal prejudice or left in place regardless? If it's a left wing voice posting bannable content 9/10 times, is that unfairly banning/censoring of left wing voices or simply the ratio that such ban-able content occurs? Does that cross over into publisher status? I don't think so. I ask as the outrage over specifically conservative voices being censored has less to do with reality and more to do with loud people wanting attention as the bias against them is [mostly made-up](https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/440703-evidence-contradicts-right-wing-narrative-of-tech-censorship-and-bias https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/440703-evidence-contr...). There isn't censorship targeting right wing comments, just removal of extremist comments that often catch vocal right wing groups MORE OFTEN than left wing voices. There are loud people on the right (and some on the left) spouting misinformation, disinformation, debunked conspiracy theories (think QAnon), or outright threats and lies. These loud people and groups, when their content is removed, get more loud and right wing media platforms embrace this because it feeds on a common [Persecution Complex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion) that is largely non existent and often linked directly to some level of what some call privilege (White/Rich/establishment/etc). Yes, there are left wing media platofrmas that do the same but they are not in any way as close to the audience size as Fox News. They aren't even 'news' as in October of 2018, they [specifically noted in their ToS they are entertainment](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/). If you're getting the idea that banning of conservative voices is censorship from any voice/commentator hosted by Fox News, that's not news, it's entertainment! I mean, look at this [summary of legal cases](https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/27/21272066/social-media-bias-laura-loomer-larry-klayman-twitter-google-facebook-loss https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/27/21272066/social-media-bia...). The majority are from conservatives with 1 item from a democrat and most are quickly struck down as the complain is founded on an inaccurate idea of the first amendment, namely that the users rights were not infringed and the lawsuit attacked the platforms rights! The platform has the right to not let you use it for your inaccurate, biased, or even malicious content. You are not infringed upon by being removed from that platform for those issues specifically or likely for anything the platform deems is against their ToS or rules. In r/conservative, this means any dissent from the established norm, even just pointing out polling data that invalidates the headline, is an immediate ban. That's allowed by Reddit and not under the jurisdiction of the government. It's not lawsuit worthy either. My rights aren't being infringed if a subreddit wants to be an echo chamber of misinformation protected by heavy censorship. There is some schadenfreude when that sub complains of censorship of right wing voices but rejects any sources stating it's not reflective of reality. As a comparison, consider how climate science is presented across media. 99% of scientists agree Climate Change is aggravated by human activity and something we need to tackle; so does the Pentagon. 1% are the counter voices saying it isn't an issue or human activity is not a factor. These sides are then presented as equal (which is misinformation) and given equal weight like debated 1v1, not 99v1 like in reality. Same thing for right wing voices and voters across the US, [they are a minority](https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx). 25% of those polled identify with the GOP even though the GOP holds more than 51% of seats in the Senate and after the 2016 election held more than 51% in the House for that term. When this minority holding a majority is 'attacked', everyone on connected outlets is going to hear about that (remember on some platforms this is entertainment, not news). That's basically the commentators first amendment right to protest the ban and definitely allowed under free speech. That doesn't mean it's an accurate portrayal of reality just like the censorship of right wing voices _seems_ biased but really isn't. In both cases, the minority is extremely vocal and active disguising (or simply ignoring) data stating otherwise. Conflict, even artificial, drives clicks and revenue and that's what entertainment is all about. My bigger question is how is this interference with interstate commerce? I could see that argument applied to an influencer or commentator who is removed from their primary platform. If they lost revenue they may even have standing. But that still isn't an issue for Twitter, you can be removed from any platform you don't own and should always have your own site and system set up for hosting your content. That's preached by internet first media groups since YouTube rose to prominence. But it isn't a violation of interstate commerce.

neonate 6y ago

https://archive.vn/YnYJT https://archive.vn/YnYJT

joshuamorton 6y ago

Perhaps the most important line from the article: > The Justice Department proposal is a legislative plan that would have to be adopted by Congress.

timmytokyo 6y ago
This is an important point. Given that Congress is divided between the two parties, the chances of something like this becoming law are zero. So why is the proposal being made? It's a presidential election year, and the president is working the refs, trying to scare them away from anything that might make it even a little bit harder for him to get his "message" out.

s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago

Direct link to the bill: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Limiting-Section-230-Immunity-to-Good-Samaritans-Act.pdf https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Li...

Nasrudith 6y ago

I wonder if the colloquial understanding of platforms and ownership got bad for reasons even aside from the blatant propaganda of special interests. Back in even the 90s and 00s even the dim bulbs responding to other dim bulbs like Yahoo or AOL doing dumb stuff like shutting down child molestation victim support group channels from ham-handed attempts to try to moderate didn't lead to any idiots thinking that the government should somehow punish them even though it was rightfully called stupid and morally wrong. Was it because they actually understood the internet existed as many small sites as well as the big names?