4 ms·
Big tech gave up moral right for that protection as soon as they decided to interfere with what is posted. Its like claiming that you don't generate any of the
by liaukovv 6y ago
Big tech gave up moral right for that protection as soon as they decided to interfere with what is posted.
Its like claiming that you don't generate any of the content, because you "just" select what to ban from an endless stream of randomly generated content.
- duxup 6y ago>Big tech gave up moral right for that protection as soon as they decided to interfere with what is posted. Do I do the same if I remove something from my own site that someone else posts? Do you?
- liaukovv 6y agoDepends on what was posted obviously. If I'm just removing opinions I disagree with its obvious I'm exercising full control over the content and therefore assume full liability. Can't have one without the other.
- duxup 6y agoWouldn't your premise mean that at some scale you can't actually operate? It's not really possible to operate and actually be liable all content on facebook, or youtube, or etc right?
- liaukovv 6y agoMaybe you can't, maybe you should have thought of that before assuming this liability. But for society at large good faith attempt at following your own rules would suffice probably.
- duxup 6y agoI don't think communication should be restricted because of scale of moderation issues. That seems artificial and strange.
- gamblor956 6y agoBy that argument, if you fail to remove a comment from your post because you were on vacation, that means you accept full liability for that comment...even if that comment was inciting murder and someone acted on it. That sort of silly black and white logic doesn't work in the real world.
- graeme 6y agoModeration was explicitly considered as part of the reason for section 230. What are you basing your opinion on?
- liaukovv 6y agoHow many people on twitter were banned for "eat the rich"?
- duxup 6y agoHow may were banned? Does that matter?
- schoen 6y agoThe parent's point is not that tech companies are unbiased or shouldn't be criticized for their bias, it's that §230 was originally adopted specifically to allow subjective moderation. It's a misconception that the law was predicated on a neutrality or objectivity obligation. Instead, it was meant to reverse court decisions that suggested that such an obligation might exist as a requirement for protection of intermediaries. §230 was meant to allow intermediaries to be protected while exercising editorial control. That doesn't mean that platforms' actual editorial control is "fair"; it just means that the argument that platforms should obviously have to lose §230 protections over their editorial biases misrepresents the history of this legislation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act#Background_and_passage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
- liaukovv 6y agoShuting out half of a political spectrum doesnt strike me as the original intention. The idea was "to keep internet civil" which makes a lot of sense, but that's obviously not what is happening and not what provoked this reaction.
- jbermudes 6y agoOn the contrary, that is exactly why it was created. Dog lovers forums aren't supposed to be compelled to allow cat lovers a platform to voice their opinion on the dog lover's private server. Private servers are not public forums in the legal sense. We can have a conversation on whether or not that needs to change, but basic US law on private property is very clear about this.
- vkou 6y agoThe first amendment protects that moral right. Free speech isn't free, if other people can compel you to amplify their speech, against your wishes.
- sk5t 6y agoBecoming aware of a bad actor and then stopping them need not confer a responsibility to find and stop all bad actors known and unknown. The telephone company isn't, like, detecting prank calls and stopping them before they can happen. Make 10,000 irritating calls and maybe you'll show up on their radar screen, though.
- liaukovv 6y agoSure, but if your rule application has a significant bias then maybe you are not as impartial as you are trying to appear.
- michaelmrose 6y agoWhy is impartiality a desired characteristic?
- michaelmrose 6y agoThe protection isn't moral, whatever that means to you, in nature in the first place its practical. Even with expensive manual review of all user generated content our society is so litigious and litigation so expensive that nobody could afford long term to offer user generated content. Basically without forcing liability for content to be between the person wronged and the person responsible for the wrong doing the internet as we know it basically can't exist. Moderating nothing instead means communities turn into cesspools of hate where an increasing number become afraid or disinterested in engaging. Meanwhile increasingly evil and radical ideas become normalized in the context of these echo chambers damaging our society. Furthermore the idea that if they must choose between zero interference and full responsibility is a false dichotomy invented from whole cloth not in support of neutrality but as a last ditch defense against inevitable social change.