4 ms·

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

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.
        root_axis 6y ago
        > but ultimately are at the discretion of the site owners The site owners don't ban users based on race and gender which is the claim I responded to. > Reddit site owners treat different subreddits differently and different viewpoints differently Well yes, that is how standards work, "different views" are treated differently based on how they stack up with respect to the standard. I understand that you're arguing that reddit applies the rules selectively, but reddit would argue that they apply them fairly, so how do you suggest this kind of conflict be resolved at scale? Who should decide if reddit is being fair or not? > If you're challenging the history of reddit, you aren't informed enough to be discussing this and it's not worth rehashing. If you want to make an argument then make it, but condescending declarations of a monopoly on the informed position does not do your case any favors.
- 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.

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.
      - root_axis 6y ago
        > but ultimately are at the discretion of the site owners The site owners don't ban users based on race and gender which is the claim I responded to. > Reddit site owners treat different subreddits differently and different viewpoints differently Well yes, that is how standards work, "different views" are treated differently based on how they stack up with respect to the standard. I understand that you're arguing that reddit applies the rules selectively, but reddit would argue that they apply them fairly, so how do you suggest this kind of conflict be resolved at scale? Who should decide if reddit is being fair or not? > If you're challenging the history of reddit, you aren't informed enough to be discussing this and it's not worth rehashing. If you want to make an argument then make it, but condescending declarations of a monopoly on the informed position does not do your case any favors.
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.