4 ms·

> b. Carve-Outs for Child Abuse, Terrorism, and Cyber-Stalking. Second, the Department proposes exempting from immunity specific categories of claims that addre

by cirno 6y ago

> b. Carve-Outs for Child Abuse, Terrorism, and Cyber-Stalking. Second, the Department proposes exempting from immunity specific categories of claims that address particularly egregious content, including (1) child exploitation and sexual abuse, (2) terrorism, and (3) cyber-stalking. These targeted carve-outs would halt the over-expansion of Section 230 immunity and enable victims to seek civil redress in causes of action far afield from the original purpose of the statute. Can we please just do this one on its own either way? This has been a real problem online with companies like Cloudflare offering hosting to websites engaging in these areas. These three are explicitly illegal and yet sites that harbor this content, especially cyber-stalking sites like Kiwi Farms (47 U.S.C. § 223), are still somehow online.

ryukafalz 6y ago
Conversely, this is the one section that I don’t want added. The “Bad Samaritan carve-out” seems to cover cases where the platform is aware of the content pretty well, and I’d support adding that. This is about making them liable even when they aren’t aware of it, which is problematic for any site that handles anything user-generated, especially if you don’t have an army of moderators like Facebook does.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Spivak 6y ago
  > This is about making them liable even when they aren’t aware of it… There are two sides to this though. If you make a carve-out for ignorance you incentivize ignorance. I think the argument is that if you’re not able to moderate your user-generated content at the most basic levels like running image hashes against the CP database then you shouldn’t be hosting it.
  - sprayk 6y ago
    > I think the argument is that if you’re not able to moderate your user-generated content at the most basic levels like running image hashes against the CP database then you shouldn’t be hosting it. Then surely some minimum level of CP detection should be part of this section, right? If the requirements here are not defined well enough, then any company, from the smallest startup to a behemoth like FB, could be liable for some CP shared through the platform in a novel way that would have been impossible to detect.
  - Renaud 6y ago
    As you mentioned, there are ways to detect some pre-existing illegal content but having a notification mechanism in place can take care of the knowledge part. Force providers to have a reporting system that feeds back a unique case code that can be quoted as evidence of knowledge. Then they have x days to investigate and respond.
- BobbyJo 6y ago
  Maybe needing an army of moderators is just the cost of doing business when it comes to hosting user content. I'm weary of that change being made, but really, I don't see a viable alternative, or a good argument against it. If you can't moderate content at some scale, then maybe you just shouldn't host content at that scale. I think there may be a light, or a deeper darkness, that comes out of this though. We may see a lot of investment in automation for catching this kind of content.
  - stickfigure 6y ago
    I think maybe you got the wrong lesson out of reading 1984?
    - BobbyJo 6y ago
      I think conjuring that book is hyperbole. I don't think making people responsible for the legality of content they host is some crazy oppressive overreach of government power. The laws about what content is legal or illegal are pre-existing, these rules just shift the burden of enforcement in recognition that the government being the sole source of rule on massive distributed platforms isn't feasible. We tried, we failed. The bad guys ruined a good thing like usual.
      - stickfigure 6y ago
        The laws about what actions are legal or illegal are pre-existing, the telescreens and mandatory neighbor reporting just shift the burden of enforcement in recognition that the government can't effectively police the distributed masses. Fixed that for you.
        BobbyJo 6y ago
        Thanks, that seems like the point I was trying to get across.
  - jackcosgrove 6y ago
    Moderation is the secret sauce of user-generated content. You shouldn't allow for user generated content if you aren't prepared to moderate it. It seems many people still don't understand that this is the biggest problem facing social media. Not scaling, not engagement, but moderation.

by cirno 6y ago

ryukafalz 6y ago

Conversely, this is the one section that I don’t want added. The “Bad Samaritan carve-out” seems to cover cases where the platform is aware of the content pretty well, and I’d support adding that. This is about making them liable even when they aren’t aware of it, which is problematic for any site that handles anything user-generated, especially if you don’t have an army of moderators like Facebook does.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Spivak 6y ago
> This is about making them liable even when they aren’t aware of it… There are two sides to this though. If you make a carve-out for ignorance you incentivize ignorance. I think the argument is that if you’re not able to moderate your user-generated content at the most basic levels like running image hashes against the CP database then you shouldn’t be hosting it.
- sprayk 6y ago
  > I think the argument is that if you’re not able to moderate your user-generated content at the most basic levels like running image hashes against the CP database then you shouldn’t be hosting it. Then surely some minimum level of CP detection should be part of this section, right? If the requirements here are not defined well enough, then any company, from the smallest startup to a behemoth like FB, could be liable for some CP shared through the platform in a novel way that would have been impossible to detect.
- Renaud 6y ago
  As you mentioned, there are ways to detect some pre-existing illegal content but having a notification mechanism in place can take care of the knowledge part. Force providers to have a reporting system that feeds back a unique case code that can be quoted as evidence of knowledge. Then they have x days to investigate and respond.
BobbyJo 6y ago
Maybe needing an army of moderators is just the cost of doing business when it comes to hosting user content. I'm weary of that change being made, but really, I don't see a viable alternative, or a good argument against it. If you can't moderate content at some scale, then maybe you just shouldn't host content at that scale. I think there may be a light, or a deeper darkness, that comes out of this though. We may see a lot of investment in automation for catching this kind of content.
- stickfigure 6y ago
  I think maybe you got the wrong lesson out of reading 1984?
  - BobbyJo 6y ago
    I think conjuring that book is hyperbole. I don't think making people responsible for the legality of content they host is some crazy oppressive overreach of government power. The laws about what content is legal or illegal are pre-existing, these rules just shift the burden of enforcement in recognition that the government being the sole source of rule on massive distributed platforms isn't feasible. We tried, we failed. The bad guys ruined a good thing like usual.
    - stickfigure 6y ago
      The laws about what actions are legal or illegal are pre-existing, the telescreens and mandatory neighbor reporting just shift the burden of enforcement in recognition that the government can't effectively police the distributed masses. Fixed that for you.
      - BobbyJo 6y ago
        Thanks, that seems like the point I was trying to get across.
- jackcosgrove 6y ago
  Moderation is the secret sauce of user-generated content. You shouldn't allow for user generated content if you aren't prepared to moderate it. It seems many people still don't understand that this is the biggest problem facing social media. Not scaling, not engagement, but moderation.