3 ms·

Ironically, if nobody but Google can benefit from Section 230 immunity, because people must obey Google's content moderation rules in order to remain viable in

Ironically, if nobody but Google can benefit from Section 230 immunity, because people must obey Google's content moderation rules in order to remain viable in Search and Ads, then it's even more fuel to remove Section 230 to level the playing field.

henryfjordan 6y ago
Or break Google apart. In a perfect market, ad companies would compete and their terms around UGC would be a part of that competition. Since Google is basically the only game in town, break them apart until they are no longer in a position to dictate what speech is acceptable on the internet. Google should absolutely have the right to say no to running ads on sites they think are objectionable. The issue is that there's not a healthy market.
- qtplatypus 6y ago
  Google doesn’t want to dictate what is acceptable content on the internet. The people who buy ads don’t want to be associated with racism.
  - true_religion 6y ago
    I am sure there are plenty of companies that would support what some consider racist content. Heck, remember segregation was popular back in its day and the poeple who voted against desegregation are still alive.
    - qtplatypus 6y ago
      That might be true but I would give the counter example of the adpocolips. Most companies don't want to look like they are for racism.
      - true_religion 6y ago
        Sure maybe not multinationals, but there was still a whites only bar in Alexandria till like 2005. Racists will find support from their own kind. Honestly it would be better for this sort of thing to be banned from the top down by governments, but they seem loath to call any "white" nationalist group terrorists no matter how many weapons they bring to rally and how many people they injure. White is in scare quotes, because you never know who they are counting aa such...
joshuamorton 6y ago
[I work at Google, unrelated to Ads, I'm not a lawyer, views are my own, caveat emptor, etc.] This pushes the limits of my section 230 knowledge, but I think you've got this backwards. A company that wants to comply here needs Section 230 to exist, a company that is okay with ignoring Google doesn't care about Section 230. Section 230 immunity isn't necessary for things that are completely unmoderated. If the comment sections are literally entirely unmoderated, they fall under the pre-existing statute (Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc). However, if the site wishes to moderate comments for some reason, they could be held liable for comments that stay up but are problematic (libelous etc.). So without section 230, a site would be in a catch-22. Section 230 continuing to exist avoids this problem.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  > a company that is okay with ignoring Google doesn't care about Section 230 This ignores the factual reality that Google is a monopoly in several verticals, and the number of companies that can ignore Google is actually zero. Every company needs to be in Google's good graces whether it be for advertising or app installation on mobile phones or search visibility. Even all of Google's direct competition in any given market needs to support Google in other markets. Google is inescapable and compliance with their policies is as mandatory as actual law.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
  > if the site wishes to moderate comments for some reason, they could be held liable for comments that stay up but are problematic (libelous etc.). So without section 230, a site would be in a catch-22. Section 230 continuing to exist avoids this problem. You have this exactly right. It's a fairly straightforward law. It's kind of bizarre how far people (especially journalists!) misunderstand it.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
Nasrudith 6y ago
That is literally nonsensical. Section 230 means you need to sue the actual speaker of the speech and not where they posted. Google could start acting utterly insane (which would rapidly give rise to competitors) and that wouldn't compromise Section 230 at all because Google is not the court system!

henryfjordan 6y ago

Or break Google apart. In a perfect market, ad companies would compete and their terms around UGC would be a part of that competition. Since Google is basically the only game in town, break them apart until they are no longer in a position to dictate what speech is acceptable on the internet. Google should absolutely have the right to say no to running ads on sites they think are objectionable. The issue is that there's not a healthy market.

qtplatypus 6y ago
Google doesn’t want to dictate what is acceptable content on the internet. The people who buy ads don’t want to be associated with racism.
- true_religion 6y ago
  I am sure there are plenty of companies that would support what some consider racist content. Heck, remember segregation was popular back in its day and the poeple who voted against desegregation are still alive.
  - qtplatypus 6y ago
    That might be true but I would give the counter example of the adpocolips. Most companies don't want to look like they are for racism.
    - true_religion 6y ago
      Sure maybe not multinationals, but there was still a whites only bar in Alexandria till like 2005. Racists will find support from their own kind. Honestly it would be better for this sort of thing to be banned from the top down by governments, but they seem loath to call any "white" nationalist group terrorists no matter how many weapons they bring to rally and how many people they injure. White is in scare quotes, because you never know who they are counting aa such...

joshuamorton 6y ago

[I work at Google, unrelated to Ads, I'm not a lawyer, views are my own, caveat emptor, etc.] This pushes the limits of my section 230 knowledge, but I think you've got this backwards. A company that wants to comply here needs Section 230 to exist, a company that is okay with ignoring Google doesn't care about Section 230. Section 230 immunity isn't necessary for things that are completely unmoderated. If the comment sections are literally entirely unmoderated, they fall under the pre-existing statute (Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc). However, if the site wishes to moderate comments for some reason, they could be held liable for comments that stay up but are problematic (libelous etc.). So without section 230, a site would be in a catch-22. Section 230 continuing to exist avoids this problem.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
> a company that is okay with ignoring Google doesn't care about Section 230 This ignores the factual reality that Google is a monopoly in several verticals, and the number of companies that can ignore Google is actually zero. Every company needs to be in Google's good graces whether it be for advertising or app installation on mobile phones or search visibility. Even all of Google's direct competition in any given market needs to support Google in other markets. Google is inescapable and compliance with their policies is as mandatory as actual law.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
> if the site wishes to moderate comments for some reason, they could be held liable for comments that stay up but are problematic (libelous etc.). So without section 230, a site would be in a catch-22. Section 230 continuing to exist avoids this problem. You have this exactly right. It's a fairly straightforward law. It's kind of bizarre how far people (especially journalists!) misunderstand it.
- Nasrudith 6y ago

Nasrudith 6y ago

That is literally nonsensical. Section 230 means you need to sue the actual speaker of the speech and not where they posted. Google could start acting utterly insane (which would rapidly give rise to competitors) and that wouldn't compromise Section 230 at all because Google is not the court system!