5 ms·

Oof. That's a good source. Section 5c is particularly problematic. It disallows shadow-bans if I'm reading correctly. Section f9 is...suspicious. Section d4

Oof. That's a good source. Section 5c is particularly problematic. It disallows shadow-bans if I'm reading correctly. Section f9 is...suspicious. Section d4 seems painful for small providers. You lose good samaritan status if there isn't a good way to contact you. Section c2A is the important one. It basically means that a site cannot remove content unless it is objectively obscene or extreme. Section g5A suggests that you can have a ToS that explains your moderation decisions. But c2A seems to say that you aren't a good faith actor unless you use the objectively reasonable moderations standards defined by the law. It's not clear that this would even have an effect since clearly you can moderate based on your ToS. A sports site can remove non-sports content even if it isn't obscene. It seems like the goal would be to say that content moderators are biased in some way and drop section 230 protection based on that pretext, but that'd require a court to find that the moderation is being done inconsistently, and being done inconsistently intentionally. I have a feeling there'll be difficultly proving that.

MikeTheGreat 6y ago
"objectively obscene or extreme" - is there a clear definition for obscenity? I feel like there was a famous quote from a judge on the SCOTUS to effect of "I'll know it when I see it", but law is not an area that I have expertise in.
- DSingularity 6y ago
  It’s evolved over time. The basis was content which was deemed to “deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences". The next step was to remove protection status only for speech which is “patently offensive" and "utterly without redeeming social value". Maybe it’s time for another step. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States
- tedtonks87 6y ago
  I agree, based on legal precedent ("know it when i see it") seems it would be very challenging to enforce an objective definition of obscenity.
anonHacker2 6y ago
Why do you say "clearly you can moderate based on your ToS"? I don't see anything here would permit the ToS to have moderation criteria such as "off-topic" while retaining the safe harbor. Section c1b is what leads to the conclusion that only the criteria in c2a are allowed, and section c1b doesn't mention "good faith" at all. Furthermore, for many sites such as Hacker News which define their topical focus broadly, "off-topic" could be judged to lack the "particularity" necessary to qualify as good-faith moderation criteria under section g5A.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  You're right, I'm making the assumption that the law isn't completely nonsense and banning any form of moderation whatsoever. I could be wrong.
tangjurine 6y ago
>Section 5c is particularly problematic. It disallows shadow-bans if I'm reading correctly. Can you explain more, I'm not really seeing it... Also how is disallowing shadowbanning problematic? I always never liked it.
- djur 6y ago
  What's the legitimate government interest in disallowing shadowbanning?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - nkozyra 6y ago
    Well "legitimate" is open for interpretation. I'd say this administration has resonated with its base by treating bans as politically-motivated.
    - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
      They are politically motivated. For example, I’ve been banned from Twitter for defending Kyle Rittenhouse, who engaged in lawful self defense against a number of violent assailants. Why? Because the left has decided it serves their interests to paint him as a mass murderer (indeed Facebook has an official policy that he is a mass murderer). Facebook also regularly censors viral pro-trump content and project veritas has exposed this. I wish it weren’t so, but it is. I’ve experienced it firsthand.
      - rat87 6y ago
        I'm guessing that's because "viral pro Trump content" is very frequently xenophobic& racist content, includes calls to violence and is full of conspiracy theories. If a site doesn't moderate that sort of stuff, it frequently goes to shit, I know inadequate moderation on that front had made reddit much much worse. Also this sort of stuff can lead to real world violence like when Facebook let violent vigilantes organize on their site it led to Kyle Rittenhouse killing two people.
Enginerrrd 6y ago
d4 could be accomplished by making an email to report complaints to. Doesn't seem especially onerous. f9 is suspicious how? This document is not intended in anyway to prevent anti-trust actions, so why is a specific exclusion suspicious? There's a lot of public push right now to act on anti-trust issues for large tech companies, so there's no secret there. 5c... is more complex, and I'm not sure it means what you think it does. c2A does seem particularly problematic to me in the context of trying to combat disinformation which is neither illegal nor obscene, nor violent.
ummonk 6y ago
It seems to be that under this reform to maintain Section 230 safe harbor either you would have clear and consistently enforced ToS or if not relying on a ToS you would be removing material that is objectively obscene or extreme.
- dannyw 6y ago
  This seems like a fantastic reform. It may lead to Twitter finally applying the same moderation standards to Trump, ie banning his account.
  - joering2 6y ago
    Slim chances. My source close to twitter feeding hose tells me Trump tweets and retweets are worth few million dollars in ad display daily. If they were to ban him, soon a stockholder lawsuit would follow that Twitter is willfully throwing revenue away.
slaymaker1907 6y ago
Notably, there is no carve out for factually untrue information. So you can't remove posts claiming that silver solution will cure Covid...
- dillondoyle 6y ago
  But isn't that covered in the new last section 'good faith'? where so long as it's clearly defined in TOS and moderation policy you can remove it. E.g. fb has a more clear policy that's public that says no false facts that can cause harm. I'm a 100% skeptical of this administration and the (run on rant ahead) insanely religious zealot by the name of Barr who is terrifying in trying to force his crazy beliefs on all of us whilst creating a monolithic fascist-esque unitary executive who's whim (or that who has his ear last..) controls virtually all aspects of our lives... but this seams reasonable and seems like it would answer a lot of the problems we see complained about on HN all the time? right now one of the top posts is about YouTube take down with no info/recourse.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    I don’t understand why Barr is hated by so many. I assume purely partisan reasons? He is very well spoken, principled, and in retrospect his summary of the Mueller Report was completely accurate (despite news articles I read at the time that had me convinced he was some kind of evil mastermind). The only thing I don’t like about Barr is it’s hard to see him curtailing the surveillance state, but frankly that applies too almost everyone in politics since those who speak out against the cia/nsa tend to get into unfortunate high-speed car accidents.
    - girvo 6y ago
      Yeah, somehow I doubt you're actually asking in good faith. Barr himself is horrifically partisan, which as the AG of your entire country is scary as all hell. Just read his speech in November 2019 to The Federalist Society (which itself is horrifying, the societies goals are simply at odds with what the USA has claimed to be). It's as partisan as it gets. Or is that okay, because its in-line with your own opinions?

MikeTheGreat 6y ago

"objectively obscene or extreme" - is there a clear definition for obscenity? I feel like there was a famous quote from a judge on the SCOTUS to effect of "I'll know it when I see it", but law is not an area that I have expertise in.

DSingularity 6y ago
It’s evolved over time. The basis was content which was deemed to “deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences". The next step was to remove protection status only for speech which is “patently offensive" and "utterly without redeeming social value". Maybe it’s time for another step. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States
tedtonks87 6y ago
I agree, based on legal precedent ("know it when i see it") seems it would be very challenging to enforce an objective definition of obscenity.

anonHacker2 6y ago

Why do you say "clearly you can moderate based on your ToS"? I don't see anything here would permit the ToS to have moderation criteria such as "off-topic" while retaining the safe harbor. Section c1b is what leads to the conclusion that only the criteria in c2a are allowed, and section c1b doesn't mention "good faith" at all. Furthermore, for many sites such as Hacker News which define their topical focus broadly, "off-topic" could be judged to lack the "particularity" necessary to qualify as good-faith moderation criteria under section g5A.

joshuamorton 6y ago
You're right, I'm making the assumption that the law isn't completely nonsense and banning any form of moderation whatsoever. I could be wrong.

tangjurine 6y ago

>Section 5c is particularly problematic. It disallows shadow-bans if I'm reading correctly. Can you explain more, I'm not really seeing it... Also how is disallowing shadowbanning problematic? I always never liked it.

djur 6y ago
What's the legitimate government interest in disallowing shadowbanning?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nkozyra 6y ago
  Well "legitimate" is open for interpretation. I'd say this administration has resonated with its base by treating bans as politically-motivated.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    They are politically motivated. For example, I’ve been banned from Twitter for defending Kyle Rittenhouse, who engaged in lawful self defense against a number of violent assailants. Why? Because the left has decided it serves their interests to paint him as a mass murderer (indeed Facebook has an official policy that he is a mass murderer). Facebook also regularly censors viral pro-trump content and project veritas has exposed this. I wish it weren’t so, but it is. I’ve experienced it firsthand.
    - rat87 6y ago
      I'm guessing that's because "viral pro Trump content" is very frequently xenophobic& racist content, includes calls to violence and is full of conspiracy theories. If a site doesn't moderate that sort of stuff, it frequently goes to shit, I know inadequate moderation on that front had made reddit much much worse. Also this sort of stuff can lead to real world violence like when Facebook let violent vigilantes organize on their site it led to Kyle Rittenhouse killing two people.

Enginerrrd 6y ago

d4 could be accomplished by making an email to report complaints to. Doesn't seem especially onerous. f9 is suspicious how? This document is not intended in anyway to prevent anti-trust actions, so why is a specific exclusion suspicious? There's a lot of public push right now to act on anti-trust issues for large tech companies, so there's no secret there. 5c... is more complex, and I'm not sure it means what you think it does. c2A does seem particularly problematic to me in the context of trying to combat disinformation which is neither illegal nor obscene, nor violent.

ummonk 6y ago

It seems to be that under this reform to maintain Section 230 safe harbor either you would have clear and consistently enforced ToS or if not relying on a ToS you would be removing material that is objectively obscene or extreme.

dannyw 6y ago
This seems like a fantastic reform. It may lead to Twitter finally applying the same moderation standards to Trump, ie banning his account.
- joering2 6y ago
  Slim chances. My source close to twitter feeding hose tells me Trump tweets and retweets are worth few million dollars in ad display daily. If they were to ban him, soon a stockholder lawsuit would follow that Twitter is willfully throwing revenue away.

slaymaker1907 6y ago

Notably, there is no carve out for factually untrue information. So you can't remove posts claiming that silver solution will cure Covid...

dillondoyle 6y ago
But isn't that covered in the new last section 'good faith'? where so long as it's clearly defined in TOS and moderation policy you can remove it. E.g. fb has a more clear policy that's public that says no false facts that can cause harm. I'm a 100% skeptical of this administration and the (run on rant ahead) insanely religious zealot by the name of Barr who is terrifying in trying to force his crazy beliefs on all of us whilst creating a monolithic fascist-esque unitary executive who's whim (or that who has his ear last..) controls virtually all aspects of our lives... but this seams reasonable and seems like it would answer a lot of the problems we see complained about on HN all the time? right now one of the top posts is about YouTube take down with no info/recourse.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  I don’t understand why Barr is hated by so many. I assume purely partisan reasons? He is very well spoken, principled, and in retrospect his summary of the Mueller Report was completely accurate (despite news articles I read at the time that had me convinced he was some kind of evil mastermind). The only thing I don’t like about Barr is it’s hard to see him curtailing the surveillance state, but frankly that applies too almost everyone in politics since those who speak out against the cia/nsa tend to get into unfortunate high-speed car accidents.
  - girvo 6y ago
    Yeah, somehow I doubt you're actually asking in good faith. Barr himself is horrifically partisan, which as the AG of your entire country is scary as all hell. Just read his speech in November 2019 to The Federalist Society (which itself is horrifying, the societies goals are simply at odds with what the USA has claimed to be). It's as partisan as it gets. Or is that okay, because its in-line with your own opinions?