10 ms·

I don't think Reddit should be able to censor lawful content and also claim protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. If they want to po

by cwhiz 6y ago

I don't think Reddit should be able to censor lawful content and also claim protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. If they want to police lawful content that is fine but then they are no longer an open platform and they should forfeit their Section 230 protections. I dislike the ability for online platforms to have their cake of protection against lawsuits and also eat their cake of policing lawful content they don't like.

cma 6y ago
I hope you realize the entire site, and every site, would be full of 99.99% commercial spam if this went into place.
anarazel 6y ago
The aim of 230 was explicitly to allow doing so. And how would you even imagine this working? Have a bunch of conlaw students judge posts against complex tests?
root_axis 6y ago
Without section 230 protection it would be impossible for the site to stay open, so in effect you're saying sites that moderate user content should be shut down. Does that seem like an accurate interpretation of your position?
- alacombe 6y ago
  I'm fine with that. They decide to take a political stance, they shall deal with the legal consequence of their actions.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    Ok. In my view that's unreasonable. Website operators should have the freedom to moderate their sites without fear of being shut down. Moderation is part of the product, they should have the freedom to create online communities that cater to specific audiences, including with respect to political partisanship if that is where their values lie. It seems unreasonable that all the users that enjoy the site as is should lose access to it because of some users who disagree with the site's moderation policies.
    - rewoi 6y ago
      removed
      - root_axis 6y ago
        > they should also disclose their bias This isn't a practical idea. People aren't always aware of their own biases and critics are also inclined to see bias even when there is none. There is no practical way to determine bias levels. > Reddit is very happy to claim they are unbiased, neutral, hate free. Are they? Can you point to an example of such a claim? > But some preferred subreddits will ban people for heaving wrong gender or wrong race Subbredits are run by users. > They also tolerate hate speech, incitement to violence or even advocacy for genocide , if it matches their ideology. Reddit would say they don't tolerate those things, you say they do, how do we determine who is right?
        rewoi 6y ago
        removed
        root_axis 6y ago
        So no rebuttal to anything I actually wrote? Are you sure you're not the troll, because I'm just trying to have a discussion and what you've replied with is bad-faith snark.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        Supermancho 6y ago
        > Subbredits are run by users. No, they are run day to day by users, but ultimately are at the discretion of the site owners. Case in point, this article we are discussing. > Reddit would say they don't tolerate those things, you say they do, how do we determine who is right? The behavior of the site owners? Reddit site owners treat different subreddits differently and different viewpoints differently, although there is single characteristic differences (gender, race, etc) because of the people and topics that are generated from the groups. Pre-censoring, is not uncommon, which has led up to this wrongthink penalty. If you're challenging the history of reddit, you aren't informed enough to be discussing this and it's not worth rehashing.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    The core here is that answering the question of "did the site decide to take an unreasonable political stance?" vs "did the user decide to take an unreasonable political stance?" is not as black and white as you would like. The answer is going to be a moving target. You're gonna have some government bureaucrats having to make rulings on these regulations. And many of the proponents of this seem to fail to imagine a world where Donald Trump is ever not president. Imagine the power this would give the government against someone who plays fast and loose with 'facts'. "We've decided that the statements in this post were intentionally misleading, therefore they are a political statement, and the owners of the site promoted them in a way that they didn't do to this other post, therefore the owners are making a political statement and this is not a neutral site, which makes it liable for these other comments from other users that we're interpreting as violent threats."
  - ASinclair 6y ago
    What you're saying is that because they've decided to take a political stance the current law should be changed to impose new consequences on them. As the law stands today there are no consequences.
- cft 6y ago
  Sure it will be possible to stay open: just double down removing offending content and defend from the lawsuits. Large companies routinely have multiple ongoing lawsuits.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > just double down removing offending content and defend from the lawsuits This is unsustainable though, there is just too much content to filter. There is also the fact that lacking such protections the site will be targeted by bad-faith actors who intend to harm the site by posting lots of legally problematic content.
  - basch 6y ago
    What lawsuits. They are well within their right to remove whatever they want. Maybe not everyone agrees thats how it should be, but thats how it is.
  - dopamean 6y ago
    This is not a practical way for anyone to run a business.
- lolbrels 6y ago
  Not the parent, but I think the answer to your loaded statement is: no - that is not an accurate interpretation of their position. Have protections -> must allow all content that is legal equally. Dont have protections -> moderate site as you like. Pick one.
- an_opabinia 6y ago
  Section 230 is another classic legalist versus legal realist versus "whatever absolves me" trap that people fall into on this forum. The legal realism prevails with this stupid law, it will always prevail. You can both moderate / review / editorialize content, including political content, while simultaneously enjoying Section 230 protections.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    The people who argue this point are arguing for a change in the law.
kick 6y ago
What you "think" is literally entirely against the reason Section 230 exists.
manfredo 6y ago
The problem is that "lawful content" includes things like explicit support for Nazism and the KKK (not 2020 "Trump is a Nazi" kind of allegations of Nazism, but actual Nazis). Even things like abstract calls for violence are protected under the First Amendment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio I don't think people espousing this view understand the scope of what sites need to tolerate to comply. Would reddit be a better place if they let people say, "ni\\\\s belong in shackles" and, "death to Jews"? Because that's legal speech.
- rufus_3 6y ago
  How might a democracy suffer if those who control the common venues for voter's political dialogue are given a monopoly over setting the bounds of acceptable speech?
  - manfredo 6y ago
    I think it's an extreme stretch to say that Reddit has a monopoly. Or even Reddit + Facebook + YouTube. My response would be to tell people to rediscover personal websites, mailing lists, and IRC. I'd be more concerned if ISPs, DNS providers, and payment processors start policing users' politics (which they have, recently, see the Carl Benjamin AKA "Sargon of Akkad" situation where payment processors threatened to cease business with Patreon unless they kicked him off the site). Being kicked off of Facebook or Reddit doesn't prevent someone from publishing their content. I've always told people if you want reliably get your message across, host your own website. It's not hard to pick up some basic HTML and CSS. It's only once the ability of people to publish their own messages that I get concerned. As far as Reddit and Facebook go, understand that freedom of speech also means freedom from compelled speech. It's not just about being able to say what you want, it's about being able to not say the things you don't want to say. Making Section 230 contingent on hosting all legal content compels people so say a lot of things they don't want to say.
yusyusyus 6y ago
What model makes sense and why should it be treated differently than other forums with moderation? I'm a big fan of the idea that internet providers, DNS registrars, etc. need to be neutral to content in the way common carriers are, but I'm not convinced yet that platforms should have similar obligations. It seems that the appropriate response to schismatic disagreement with the "SysOps of the BBS" is to build another BBS as the "telephone network" is open to all.
- luckylion 6y ago
  At some point, that gets moved up a few levels though, if the BBS allows for groups that get moderated by other people, is the BBS still "the moderator" or is it those people that set up the group? And if you don't agree with their decisions, should you be able to launch a rival group on the BBS (it being a platform and all)?
  - yusyusyus 6y ago
    I simply disagree that it moves up. We have had a clear delineation between what is "restrictive private property" and what is "open access private property". That separation is clearly delineated at the IP network + related necessities. This model has worked well, and I don't see how it is breaking now. Someone else mentioned as well, but some very specific monopoly/necessity cases could change this delineation, however I could only see this being necessary with a much different environment than we have today (that is, situations without feasible common carrier alternatives, _maybe_ google search would be an example today). I won't speak to your particular motives because I don't know you from anyone else, but I sometimes wonder if a core driver behind wanting to mess with section 230 is because people feel entitled to an audience at low/no cost to them, at the expense of platform owners, to blather on about whatever they please. To this end, I say "nope, you're not entitled... we have an open internet, drive your own damn traffic".
    - luckylion 6y ago
      I think it's reasonable to argue that we have a bunch of local monopolies today, only that "local" on the internet is interest-based-local, not geographically local. You mentioned Google Search, I'd add Youtube for video content, Twitch for streaming, FB for social network etc. Sure, you can broadcast video content without Youtube, there's vimeo or you could host it yourself, but it's really not a feasible approach. Much like you don't really have to rely on the local utility company to provide you with electricity and water, you could totally run a generator in your back yard and have trucks bring in fresh and move out waste water ... but it's not a realistic approach. > To this end, I say "nope, you're not entitled... we have an open internet, drive your own damn traffic". I'd respond that we don't have an open internet, but more importantly: you don't have to be a platform, nobody is stopping Reddit from being a publisher. The reason why they don't want to legally be a publisher is simply that their low-cost approach doesn't work if they have more responsibility for what they publish. They very much want to be able to pick and choose what is published, but they don't want to be considered a publisher.
majormajor 6y ago
So no site should be allowed to have moderation policies that include things like "no trolling," "no flaming," "no swearing," or anything like else like that for things that don't cross into "illegal" abusive speech? Without becoming a target for filling up with illegal shit to overwhelm the moderators and cause legal trouble for the owners? So HN is gone, too, then.
- NOGDP 6y ago
  > So no site should be allowed to have moderation policies that include things like "no trolling," "no flaming," "no swearing," or anything like else like that for things that don't cross into "illegal" abusive speech? Any site can have any rules they want. But they shouldn't expect to be able manipulate and control discussion and face no backlash from users. > Without becoming a target for filling up with illegal shit to overwhelm the moderators and cause legal trouble for the owners? 'Trolling', 'flaming' and 'swearing' are not illegal, and honestly, most complaints about 'trolling' I see are just people who disagree with what they're reading.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    > But they shouldn't expect to be able manipulate and control discussion and face no backlash from users. You're saying they should face backlash from government regulators not from users. If there's a big user backlash, those users are already free to move to whatever site they want, or make their own. --- Re: your comment about trolling, etc, not being illegal: yes, exactly. So if a site wanted to enforce some sort of "family friendly" policy, you could simply bomb them with truly illegal shit instead and get them in trouble with the regulators for not being able to keep up as they would be liable for that, since they aren't a "anything legal goes" platform.
    - NOGDP 6y ago
      > You're saying they should face backlash from government regulators not from users I never said that. But it's probably a good idea to have some sort of oversight for a massive platform that censors and manipulates discussion of millions of people. You may think their policies are totally justified and correct (they aren't), but the specific opinions they choose to promote may change to something you are against. > If there's a big user backlash, those users are already free to move to whatever site they want, or make their own. Yes, they are also free to shit on the website and point out it's flaws. > So if a site wanted to enforce some sort of "family friendly" policy, you could simply bomb them with truly illegal shit instead and get them in trouble with the regulators for not being able to keep up as they would be liable for that, since they aren't a "anything legal goes" platform. Trolling is not illegal, it's not even a specific thing. It's a very ambiguous term used to describe 'comment's that make me feel bad'. Trolling and posting illegal shit is completely different, sure ban illegal stuff - you kind of have to, but don't use 'trolling' as an excuse to ban stuff you disagree with.
basch 6y ago
In essence section 230 says "as a platform, youre not held liable for censorship of content you find objectionable, AND you dont take ownership of the speech you leave up." Section 230 did not create a distinction between a platform and a publisher that required censorship rules to be applied fairly or evenly. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
cthalupa 6y ago
That was literally the purpose of Section 230. If you want them to not be able to do that, you want Section 230 to be repealed. You don't have to take my word for it, either, since one of the authors has been explicit about it. (The discussion in his tweets is largely framed around politics, but there is nothing that would make the argument only apply to them vs speech in general) https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1266052221072019456 https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1266052221072019456
SuperFerret 6y ago
I abhor right wing politics but I agree with this. Reddit needs to extend this attitude to moderators. Moderators should not be able to delete content or ban people that post legal content.
stereolambda 6y ago
I mean, I see merit in the position that monopolistic corporate entities, which you are forced to interact with if you want to participate in modern society, have government-like power over people and should be held to similar standards in terms of civil liberties. But Reddit is effectively just a big message board. Such interpretation would force every small internet forum to either become a [0-9]chan or a closed space for invited members only. There is lots of middle ground where the owners/the community polices some speech and you can reasonably, realistically just go somewhere else.
qq11ww22ee33 6y ago
I don't think Hacker News should be able to censor lawful content and also claim protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. If they want to police lawful content that is fine but then they are no longer an open platform and they should forfeit their Section 230 protections. I dislike the ability for online platforms to have their cake of protection against lawsuits and also eat their cake of policing lawful content they don't like.
hn_check 6y ago
This is an absurd argument that the far right is plying as if they have some constitutional right to push their hateful noise on every site. The internet is open. If you disagree with Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc, there are alternatives. Of course when the hateful all congregate, the farce of their positions becomes too clear. They need the legitimacy of Twitter or Facebook to ply their nonsense. As an aside, it's interesting that those far right sites are some of the most fervently moderated, "snowflake" sites. Even The_Donald on reddit was hysterical in its suppression of even a simple question on the truthfulness of some fake claim. Instant comment deletion and account ban. Gab's extreme assertions of their moderation policy are uproarious when compared to its creation (you know - "Twitter silenced right wing voices!")
tzs 6y ago
> I don't think Reddit should be able to censor lawful content and also claim protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The whole point of Section 230 was so sites could do that. Before 230, there has been court rulings that said if you moderate the content you are liable for the content. 230 was enacted specifically to reverse that.
trcollinson 6y ago
Unfortunately, I don't think you understand the extent to which you, as an individual user, would be under obligation if Section 230 wasn't in force. Section 230 protects you, the "user" as much as it protects the platform or "provider of interactive computer services". It is very likely that without the protections of Section 230 you, the "user", would have to decide whether my comments on your Reddit post, Youtube video, Facebook post, or even this post, do not bring you under undo liability, and thus would have to police those comments. If you are prepared to do so, then go ahead and remove Section 230 protections. I have a legal background and I am certainly not prepared to decide if all content related to my content is lawful content.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
danShumway 6y ago
> I don't think Reddit should be able to censor lawful content and also claim protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act The entire point of 230 was to allow companies like Reddit to censor lawful content while still claiming protections. It was never designed at any point to create neutral platforms. Lack of moderation was already a defense before 230 was created: > CompuServe stated they would not attempt to regulate what users posted on their services, while Prodigy had employed a team of moderators to validate content. Both faced legal challenges related to content posted by their users. In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users. However, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. found that as Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and legally responsible for libel committed by customers. [0] Section 230 was not designed to foster neutral platforms, it was designed to allow platforms/communities to moderate as they saw fit without opening themselves up to legal liability. To re-phrase that in modern terms, section 230 is one of the strongest protections we have today for community's Right to Filter[1]. When people say that they like Section 230 but it's gone off the rails, what they really mean is that they think Section 230 was always a bad idea. Or perhaps more charitably that they haven't really researched how Section 230 works or what its history was. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... [1]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-filter https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-filter

by cwhiz 6y ago

cma 6y ago

I hope you realize the entire site, and every site, would be full of 99.99% commercial spam if this went into place.

anarazel 6y ago

The aim of 230 was explicitly to allow doing so. And how would you even imagine this working? Have a bunch of conlaw students judge posts against complex tests?

root_axis 6y ago

Without section 230 protection it would be impossible for the site to stay open, so in effect you're saying sites that moderate user content should be shut down. Does that seem like an accurate interpretation of your position?

alacombe 6y ago
I'm fine with that. They decide to take a political stance, they shall deal with the legal consequence of their actions.
- root_axis 6y ago
  Ok. In my view that's unreasonable. Website operators should have the freedom to moderate their sites without fear of being shut down. Moderation is part of the product, they should have the freedom to create online communities that cater to specific audiences, including with respect to political partisanship if that is where their values lie. It seems unreasonable that all the users that enjoy the site as is should lose access to it because of some users who disagree with the site's moderation policies.
  - rewoi 6y ago
    removed
    - root_axis 6y ago
      > they should also disclose their bias This isn't a practical idea. People aren't always aware of their own biases and critics are also inclined to see bias even when there is none. There is no practical way to determine bias levels. > Reddit is very happy to claim they are unbiased, neutral, hate free. Are they? Can you point to an example of such a claim? > But some preferred subreddits will ban people for heaving wrong gender or wrong race Subbredits are run by users. > They also tolerate hate speech, incitement to violence or even advocacy for genocide , if it matches their ideology. Reddit would say they don't tolerate those things, you say they do, how do we determine who is right?
      - rewoi 6y ago
        removed
        root_axis 6y ago
        So no rebuttal to anything I actually wrote? Are you sure you're not the troll, because I'm just trying to have a discussion and what you've replied with is bad-faith snark.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - Supermancho 6y ago
        > Subbredits are run by users. No, they are run day to day by users, but ultimately are at the discretion of the site owners. Case in point, this article we are discussing. > Reddit would say they don't tolerate those things, you say they do, how do we determine who is right? The behavior of the site owners? Reddit site owners treat different subreddits differently and different viewpoints differently, although there is single characteristic differences (gender, race, etc) because of the people and topics that are generated from the groups. Pre-censoring, is not uncommon, which has led up to this wrongthink penalty. If you're challenging the history of reddit, you aren't informed enough to be discussing this and it's not worth rehashing.
- majormajor 6y ago
  The core here is that answering the question of "did the site decide to take an unreasonable political stance?" vs "did the user decide to take an unreasonable political stance?" is not as black and white as you would like. The answer is going to be a moving target. You're gonna have some government bureaucrats having to make rulings on these regulations. And many of the proponents of this seem to fail to imagine a world where Donald Trump is ever not president. Imagine the power this would give the government against someone who plays fast and loose with 'facts'. "We've decided that the statements in this post were intentionally misleading, therefore they are a political statement, and the owners of the site promoted them in a way that they didn't do to this other post, therefore the owners are making a political statement and this is not a neutral site, which makes it liable for these other comments from other users that we're interpreting as violent threats."
- ASinclair 6y ago
  What you're saying is that because they've decided to take a political stance the current law should be changed to impose new consequences on them. As the law stands today there are no consequences.
cft 6y ago
Sure it will be possible to stay open: just double down removing offending content and defend from the lawsuits. Large companies routinely have multiple ongoing lawsuits.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > just double down removing offending content and defend from the lawsuits This is unsustainable though, there is just too much content to filter. There is also the fact that lacking such protections the site will be targeted by bad-faith actors who intend to harm the site by posting lots of legally problematic content.
- basch 6y ago
  What lawsuits. They are well within their right to remove whatever they want. Maybe not everyone agrees thats how it should be, but thats how it is.
- dopamean 6y ago
  This is not a practical way for anyone to run a business.
lolbrels 6y ago
Not the parent, but I think the answer to your loaded statement is: no - that is not an accurate interpretation of their position. Have protections -> must allow all content that is legal equally. Dont have protections -> moderate site as you like. Pick one.
an_opabinia 6y ago
Section 230 is another classic legalist versus legal realist versus "whatever absolves me" trap that people fall into on this forum. The legal realism prevails with this stupid law, it will always prevail. You can both moderate / review / editorialize content, including political content, while simultaneously enjoying Section 230 protections.
- root_axis 6y ago
  The people who argue this point are arguing for a change in the law.

kick 6y ago

What you "think" is literally entirely against the reason Section 230 exists.

manfredo 6y ago

The problem is that "lawful content" includes things like explicit support for Nazism and the KKK (not 2020 "Trump is a Nazi" kind of allegations of Nazism, but actual Nazis). Even things like abstract calls for violence are protected under the First Amendment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio I don't think people espousing this view understand the scope of what sites need to tolerate to comply. Would reddit be a better place if they let people say, "ni\\\\s belong in shackles" and, "death to Jews"? Because that's legal speech.

rufus_3 6y ago
How might a democracy suffer if those who control the common venues for voter's political dialogue are given a monopoly over setting the bounds of acceptable speech?
- manfredo 6y ago
  I think it's an extreme stretch to say that Reddit has a monopoly. Or even Reddit + Facebook + YouTube. My response would be to tell people to rediscover personal websites, mailing lists, and IRC. I'd be more concerned if ISPs, DNS providers, and payment processors start policing users' politics (which they have, recently, see the Carl Benjamin AKA "Sargon of Akkad" situation where payment processors threatened to cease business with Patreon unless they kicked him off the site). Being kicked off of Facebook or Reddit doesn't prevent someone from publishing their content. I've always told people if you want reliably get your message across, host your own website. It's not hard to pick up some basic HTML and CSS. It's only once the ability of people to publish their own messages that I get concerned. As far as Reddit and Facebook go, understand that freedom of speech also means freedom from compelled speech. It's not just about being able to say what you want, it's about being able to not say the things you don't want to say. Making Section 230 contingent on hosting all legal content compels people so say a lot of things they don't want to say.

yusyusyus 6y ago

What model makes sense and why should it be treated differently than other forums with moderation? I'm a big fan of the idea that internet providers, DNS registrars, etc. need to be neutral to content in the way common carriers are, but I'm not convinced yet that platforms should have similar obligations. It seems that the appropriate response to schismatic disagreement with the "SysOps of the BBS" is to build another BBS as the "telephone network" is open to all.

luckylion 6y ago
At some point, that gets moved up a few levels though, if the BBS allows for groups that get moderated by other people, is the BBS still "the moderator" or is it those people that set up the group? And if you don't agree with their decisions, should you be able to launch a rival group on the BBS (it being a platform and all)?
- yusyusyus 6y ago
  I simply disagree that it moves up. We have had a clear delineation between what is "restrictive private property" and what is "open access private property". That separation is clearly delineated at the IP network + related necessities. This model has worked well, and I don't see how it is breaking now. Someone else mentioned as well, but some very specific monopoly/necessity cases could change this delineation, however I could only see this being necessary with a much different environment than we have today (that is, situations without feasible common carrier alternatives, _maybe_ google search would be an example today). I won't speak to your particular motives because I don't know you from anyone else, but I sometimes wonder if a core driver behind wanting to mess with section 230 is because people feel entitled to an audience at low/no cost to them, at the expense of platform owners, to blather on about whatever they please. To this end, I say "nope, you're not entitled... we have an open internet, drive your own damn traffic".
  - luckylion 6y ago
    I think it's reasonable to argue that we have a bunch of local monopolies today, only that "local" on the internet is interest-based-local, not geographically local. You mentioned Google Search, I'd add Youtube for video content, Twitch for streaming, FB for social network etc. Sure, you can broadcast video content without Youtube, there's vimeo or you could host it yourself, but it's really not a feasible approach. Much like you don't really have to rely on the local utility company to provide you with electricity and water, you could totally run a generator in your back yard and have trucks bring in fresh and move out waste water ... but it's not a realistic approach. > To this end, I say "nope, you're not entitled... we have an open internet, drive your own damn traffic". I'd respond that we don't have an open internet, but more importantly: you don't have to be a platform, nobody is stopping Reddit from being a publisher. The reason why they don't want to legally be a publisher is simply that their low-cost approach doesn't work if they have more responsibility for what they publish. They very much want to be able to pick and choose what is published, but they don't want to be considered a publisher.

majormajor 6y ago

So no site should be allowed to have moderation policies that include things like "no trolling," "no flaming," "no swearing," or anything like else like that for things that don't cross into "illegal" abusive speech? Without becoming a target for filling up with illegal shit to overwhelm the moderators and cause legal trouble for the owners? So HN is gone, too, then.

NOGDP 6y ago
> So no site should be allowed to have moderation policies that include things like "no trolling," "no flaming," "no swearing," or anything like else like that for things that don't cross into "illegal" abusive speech? Any site can have any rules they want. But they shouldn't expect to be able manipulate and control discussion and face no backlash from users. > Without becoming a target for filling up with illegal shit to overwhelm the moderators and cause legal trouble for the owners? 'Trolling', 'flaming' and 'swearing' are not illegal, and honestly, most complaints about 'trolling' I see are just people who disagree with what they're reading.
- majormajor 6y ago
  > But they shouldn't expect to be able manipulate and control discussion and face no backlash from users. You're saying they should face backlash from government regulators not from users. If there's a big user backlash, those users are already free to move to whatever site they want, or make their own. --- Re: your comment about trolling, etc, not being illegal: yes, exactly. So if a site wanted to enforce some sort of "family friendly" policy, you could simply bomb them with truly illegal shit instead and get them in trouble with the regulators for not being able to keep up as they would be liable for that, since they aren't a "anything legal goes" platform.
  - NOGDP 6y ago
    > You're saying they should face backlash from government regulators not from users I never said that. But it's probably a good idea to have some sort of oversight for a massive platform that censors and manipulates discussion of millions of people. You may think their policies are totally justified and correct (they aren't), but the specific opinions they choose to promote may change to something you are against. > If there's a big user backlash, those users are already free to move to whatever site they want, or make their own. Yes, they are also free to shit on the website and point out it's flaws. > So if a site wanted to enforce some sort of "family friendly" policy, you could simply bomb them with truly illegal shit instead and get them in trouble with the regulators for not being able to keep up as they would be liable for that, since they aren't a "anything legal goes" platform. Trolling is not illegal, it's not even a specific thing. It's a very ambiguous term used to describe 'comment's that make me feel bad'. Trolling and posting illegal shit is completely different, sure ban illegal stuff - you kind of have to, but don't use 'trolling' as an excuse to ban stuff you disagree with.

basch 6y ago

In essence section 230 says "as a platform, youre not held liable for censorship of content you find objectionable, AND you dont take ownership of the speech you leave up." Section 230 did not create a distinction between a platform and a publisher that required censorship rules to be applied fairly or evenly. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

cthalupa 6y ago

That was literally the purpose of Section 230. If you want them to not be able to do that, you want Section 230 to be repealed. You don't have to take my word for it, either, since one of the authors has been explicit about it. (The discussion in his tweets is largely framed around politics, but there is nothing that would make the argument only apply to them vs speech in general) https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1266052221072019456 https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1266052221072019456

SuperFerret 6y ago

I abhor right wing politics but I agree with this. Reddit needs to extend this attitude to moderators. Moderators should not be able to delete content or ban people that post legal content.

stereolambda 6y ago

I mean, I see merit in the position that monopolistic corporate entities, which you are forced to interact with if you want to participate in modern society, have government-like power over people and should be held to similar standards in terms of civil liberties. But Reddit is effectively just a big message board. Such interpretation would force every small internet forum to either become a [0-9]chan or a closed space for invited members only. There is lots of middle ground where the owners/the community polices some speech and you can reasonably, realistically just go somewhere else.

qq11ww22ee33 6y ago

I don't think Hacker News should be able to censor lawful content and also claim protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. If they want to police lawful content that is fine but then they are no longer an open platform and they should forfeit their Section 230 protections. I dislike the ability for online platforms to have their cake of protection against lawsuits and also eat their cake of policing lawful content they don't like.

hn_check 6y ago

This is an absurd argument that the far right is plying as if they have some constitutional right to push their hateful noise on every site. The internet is open. If you disagree with Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc, there are alternatives. Of course when the hateful all congregate, the farce of their positions becomes too clear. They need the legitimacy of Twitter or Facebook to ply their nonsense. As an aside, it's interesting that those far right sites are some of the most fervently moderated, "snowflake" sites. Even The_Donald on reddit was hysterical in its suppression of even a simple question on the truthfulness of some fake claim. Instant comment deletion and account ban. Gab's extreme assertions of their moderation policy are uproarious when compared to its creation (you know - "Twitter silenced right wing voices!")

tzs 6y ago

> I don't think Reddit should be able to censor lawful content and also claim protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The whole point of Section 230 was so sites could do that. Before 230, there has been court rulings that said if you moderate the content you are liable for the content. 230 was enacted specifically to reverse that.

trcollinson 6y ago

Unfortunately, I don't think you understand the extent to which you, as an individual user, would be under obligation if Section 230 wasn't in force. Section 230 protects you, the "user" as much as it protects the platform or "provider of interactive computer services". It is very likely that without the protections of Section 230 you, the "user", would have to decide whether my comments on your Reddit post, Youtube video, Facebook post, or even this post, do not bring you under undo liability, and thus would have to police those comments. If you are prepared to do so, then go ahead and remove Section 230 protections. I have a legal background and I am certainly not prepared to decide if all content related to my content is lawful content.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

danShumway 6y ago

> I don't think Reddit should be able to censor lawful content and also claim protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act The entire point of 230 was to allow companies like Reddit to censor lawful content while still claiming protections. It was never designed at any point to create neutral platforms. Lack of moderation was already a defense before 230 was created: > CompuServe stated they would not attempt to regulate what users posted on their services, while Prodigy had employed a team of moderators to validate content. Both faced legal challenges related to content posted by their users. In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., CompuServe was found not be at fault as, by its stance as allowing all content to go unmoderated, it was a distributor and thus not liable for libelous content posted by users. However, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. found that as Prodigy had taken an editorial role with regard to customer content, it was a publisher and legally responsible for libel committed by customers. [0] Section 230 was not designed to foster neutral platforms, it was designed to allow platforms/communities to moderate as they saw fit without opening themselves up to legal liability. To re-phrase that in modern terms, section 230 is one of the strongest protections we have today for community's Right to Filter[1]. When people say that they like Section 230 but it's gone off the rails, what they really mean is that they think Section 230 was always a bad idea. Or perhaps more charitably that they haven't really researched how Section 230 works or what its history was. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... [1]: https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-filter https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-filter