5 ms·

We live in a country where we have elected officials and laws to deal with individuals and organizations that undermine our democracy. I don't need some random

We live in a country where we have elected officials and laws to deal with individuals and organizations that undermine our democracy. I don't need some random collective of people headquarted in a random state to decide those things for me.

mullingitover 6y ago
Conservatives: we don't need the government censoring things! Trust the free market Free market: censors things Conservatives: no, not like that
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  You're thinking of libertarians, not conservatives.
  - orthecreedence 6y ago
    If we're being precise, you're thinking of neolibertarians. "Libertarians" are traditionally libertarian-socialists (anarchists).
    - orthecreedence 6y ago
      Downvotes because I'm wrong, or because of butthurt neolibertarians don't know the history of the word they've co-opted?
- dexen 6y ago
  >Free market: censors things Literally the opposite of the case. Due to the power of Section 230, the online platforms are shielded from the normal liability, which gives them an inherent advantage. Section 230 distorts the market, making it non-free. See also: the excellent "Propaganda, censorship, and surveillance are all attributes of monopoly"[1] story from earlier on today. Moreover, the Section 230 was specifically created to distort the market, to help kickstart the online communications and commerce, by giving it an edge over the other businesses. Now that it has done its job, we can revoke the Section 230, and return to actual free market. Where a tortious interference would be sorted out by a lawsuit. -- [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24771470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24771470
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > Now that it has done its job, we can revoke the Section 230, and return to actual free market. Where a tortious interference would be sorted out by a lawsuit. I think you spelled, "where posters freely waive their right to sue the forum as part of their publishing contract" wrong
runarberg 6y ago
> We live in a country where we have elected officials and laws to deal with individuals and organizations that undermine our democracy. This is not entirely true. I’m not sure what the law is on slander (which would be the law in question here, I believe), and if social media companies would be breaking the law if they allow slander to be distributed on their platform. But regardless if it turns out that the story is bogus, and the NYP is charged with slander, but this article had a widespread distribution and is successful in swaying voters on a false claim. Then the damage to democracy is quite significant, but the NYP gets away with a fairly minor charge of slander.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  Social media companies would not be breaking the law in this case, because of section 230. The slandered party can seek a court order to compel the disclosure of the poster's identity and sue them directly, and another to get the slanderous post yanked, but the platform is explicitly immune.
extropy 6y ago
Things are changing. If last 4 years has shown us anything, it's that we cannot control the "news" anymore. There needs to be a new solution. And this is a step towards that. Might be the wrong step...

mullingitover 6y ago

Conservatives: we don't need the government censoring things! Trust the free market Free market: censors things Conservatives: no, not like that

googthrowaway42 6y ago
You're thinking of libertarians, not conservatives.
- orthecreedence 6y ago
  If we're being precise, you're thinking of neolibertarians. "Libertarians" are traditionally libertarian-socialists (anarchists).
  - orthecreedence 6y ago
    Downvotes because I'm wrong, or because of butthurt neolibertarians don't know the history of the word they've co-opted?
dexen 6y ago
>Free market: censors things Literally the opposite of the case. Due to the power of Section 230, the online platforms are shielded from the normal liability, which gives them an inherent advantage. Section 230 distorts the market, making it non-free. See also: the excellent "Propaganda, censorship, and surveillance are all attributes of monopoly"[1] story from earlier on today. Moreover, the Section 230 was specifically created to distort the market, to help kickstart the online communications and commerce, by giving it an edge over the other businesses. Now that it has done its job, we can revoke the Section 230, and return to actual free market. Where a tortious interference would be sorted out by a lawsuit. -- [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24771470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24771470
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > Now that it has done its job, we can revoke the Section 230, and return to actual free market. Where a tortious interference would be sorted out by a lawsuit. I think you spelled, "where posters freely waive their right to sue the forum as part of their publishing contract" wrong

runarberg 6y ago

> We live in a country where we have elected officials and laws to deal with individuals and organizations that undermine our democracy. This is not entirely true. I’m not sure what the law is on slander (which would be the law in question here, I believe), and if social media companies would be breaking the law if they allow slander to be distributed on their platform. But regardless if it turns out that the story is bogus, and the NYP is charged with slander, but this article had a widespread distribution and is successful in swaying voters on a false claim. Then the damage to democracy is quite significant, but the NYP gets away with a fairly minor charge of slander.

Karunamon 6y ago
Social media companies would not be breaking the law in this case, because of section 230. The slandered party can seek a court order to compel the disclosure of the poster's identity and sue them directly, and another to get the slanderous post yanked, but the platform is explicitly immune.

extropy 6y ago

Things are changing. If last 4 years has shown us anything, it's that we cannot control the "news" anymore. There needs to be a new solution. And this is a step towards that. Might be the wrong step...