5 ms·

I think the GP post was specifically saying that if you're a "platform" you cannot moderate content. You are required to distribute anything users write on your

I think the GP post was specifically saying that if you're a "platform" you cannot moderate content. You are required to distribute anything users write on your "platform" that is not illegal (in the US?).

the8472 6y ago
The platform operator can't. That's how common carriers work (telephone, your ISP etc.). But things running on that platform could. Basically look at reddit and perhaps take it up a notch. If the platform operator does not want to be associated with some of the stuff happening on their site then perhaps they should deemphasize their branding. It wouldn't be "reddit/watchpeopledie" just "watchpeopledie". I not sure how this could work for a single-purpose community like HN. Maybe if YC ran a neutral HNaaS then the HN-prime could be operated and moderated by independent staff. An alternative approach would be exemptions for non-profit sites. I think it would be possible to operate within these broad rules if the details are crafted right, but even then it would require significant adjustments for many site operators.
- JoshTriplett 6y ago
  > An alternative approach would be exemptions for non-profit sites. Another alternative would be "leave this problem alone, it's working just fine". Site operators can and should have the ability to ban anyone or remove any content, for any reason or no reason, and doing so does not mean they should be liable for everything they might have missed. (In practice, "liable for everything they might have missed" is equivalent to "unable to operate" for anything but the most massive sites that could theoretically afford an army of moderators, and it'd have a chilling effect even there.) Destroying the concept of moderation does not make the world better. The liability shield is the whole reason Section 230 exists: to make it possible to have enjoyable communities online, without incurring so much liability that you have to shut them all down for fear of getting prosecuted. If you want unmoderated communities, they exist. Go use them. Stop trying to destroy the concept of moderated communities.(Removing the liability shield would be tantamount to destroying such communities.) Some people want the audience of moderated communities, but they don't want the standards of those communities. There's a reason unmoderated communities have fewer (and different) users.
  - the8472 6y ago
    > Site operators can and should have the ability to ban anyone or remove any content, for any reason or no reason. If a major fraction of human communication, especially during lockdowns, is facilitated by social networks then they are fulfilling a utility role. So being in the position of dictating what millions of people will talk about is at least questionable. > for anything but the most massive sites that could theoretically afford an army of moderators Ok, I have not considered this angle and it is indeed concerning. > Destroying the concept of moderation does not make the world better. That may be the goal of the FCC, but I for one did not say that I am in support of destroying moderation. Quite the opposite, I was thinking how it could be made to work while providing more open communication platforms and putting more control in the hands of the users rather than the companies.
    - JoshTriplett 6y ago
      > If a major fraction of human communication, especially during lockdowns, is facilitated by social networks then they are fulfilling a utility role. Removing the ability of those sites to moderate will not make them better. (Even if it did by some metric, that still wouldn't be acceptable; what constitutes "better" is entirely up to the site owner to determine. But it's even less reasonable given that it wouldn't have the intended effect, unless the intended effect is to cause harm.) Having many users should not suddenly mean you don't own the site, nor should it mean that you cannot moderate the site as you see fit. "We came up with a new algorithm to automatically detect spam" should not need to come with "and several years later we managed to get the government to say we're allowed to use it without incurring liability". >> for anything but the most massive sites that could theoretically afford an army of moderators > Ok, I have not considered this angle and it is indeed concerning. That angle is why Section 230 was created in the first place, and why it should remain intact. > That may be the goal of the FCC, but I for one did not say that I am in support of destroying moderation. Removing the liability shield for sites that moderate will destroy either the site or the moderation, and either way the usefulness of the site comes to an end. > Quite the opposite, I was thinking how it could be made to work while providing more open communication platforms and putting more control in the hands of the users rather than the companies. Make a new network that puts control in the hands of the users in the way you envision, and test it to see how well it works. Or join one of the existing efforts already working on that. This isn't a legislative problem; it certainly shouldn't have a legislative non-solution masquerading as a solution. I think most people's experience with moderation puts more weight on any encounters they've had with being moderated, and little to no weight (except perhaps in the abstract) on the volume of what they don't see. Moderation, when done well, is close to invisible; I think as a side effect of that, people underestimate its value in contributing to their good experiences.
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  Your ISP is explicitly not a common carrier, thanks to (aptly) an FCC rulemaking conducted under the chairmanship of Ajit Pai.
  - the8472 6y ago
    You are assuming I am currently residing in the US. Buy yes, they have been and should be again.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Let’s say this regulation passes and YC does decide to operate HNaaS. (Presumably they don’t want to, or they’d be doing it already, but under this regulation that’s how they have to operate.) So HN Prime pops up — which is basically HN as it exists today — and then a bunch of smaller constellation communities that allow things that Prime doesn’t, like spam and porn. And that’s different from present situation because…? We already have Twitter Prime (Twitter), as well as the constellation Twitters — Conservative Twitter (Parler), Nazi Twitter (Gab), [Niche Interest] Twitter (various Mastodon people instances), etc. We haven’t fundamentally changed anything; all we’ve done is move the moderation “problem” around a bit.
  - the8472 6y ago
    It's not like the sites would continue to exist exactly as they did before only with a different coat of paint. The platformization would likely impact business model - who pays the platform? who makes deals with advertises? do publisher vs. platform rules also apply to the influence that advertisers have on a site? - and changes in moderation tooling provided as part of the platform. It would also separate the financial interests of the platform provider from that of the moderators. I think the actual escape hatch would be enabling users to filter content collaboratively in a way so that there is no entity in the system could be considered a commercial publisher. The platform providers only remove illegal content and the "not a publisher under the law" users do the community-interest moderation rather than corporate-interest moderation. Of course some could still choose to play under publisher rules and allow user submissions, but that wold probably be much smaller scale if they want to be on the safe side and and pre-check things individually. > like spam and porn. I assume (without having checked) that filtering spam would still be allowed even under platform rules.
    - benaadams 6y ago
      You filter spam; and that's censorship. So you'll either end up with a mired cesspool of spam or very strict censorship to reduce legal liability risks.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
- triceratops 6y ago
  Even "common carriers" don't have to carry everything. ISPs will shut down your Internet if they find you running a server at home (not illegal, but against their ToS). The phone company will do the same thing if they find you used nefarious means to place long-distance calls. The common thread is that they act to prevent misuse of their network. You're arguing that social media companies should not be able to do the same.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > Even "common carriers" don't have to carry everything. Looking at your comments it seems like you at least agree that common carriers are subject to some laws. Great! It seems like you agree with me that there are laws and things that common carriers have to do, and that there is content that they are required to carry some content.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      And yet you don't seem to accept that common carriers perform moderation too. Nor have you acknowledged that ISPs aren't common carriers and the current FCC made it that way. Nor have you acknowledged the hypocrisy of this.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > that common carriers perform moderation I've specifically clarified that common carriers are subject to certain restrictions on what they can do, and am saying that those restrictions should apply to social media, with a law change. > the current FCC My specific claim is that the law should be changed such that they are subject to common carrier laws. Social media companies are not currently subject to them, but I am saying that the law should be changed so that they are. If you want to say that the law should be changed so that ISPs are subject to those as well, then go ahead and argue that, but that does not contradict what I am arguing for. Anyway, I am just glad at this point that you agree that common carriers are subject to certain restrictions, which was my point the whole time. And I am saying that those same restrictions, that you agree exist, should be applied to social media companies, via a law change.

the8472 6y ago

The platform operator can't. That's how common carriers work (telephone, your ISP etc.). But things running on that platform could. Basically look at reddit and perhaps take it up a notch. If the platform operator does not want to be associated with some of the stuff happening on their site then perhaps they should deemphasize their branding. It wouldn't be "reddit/watchpeopledie" just "watchpeopledie". I not sure how this could work for a single-purpose community like HN. Maybe if YC ran a neutral HNaaS then the HN-prime could be operated and moderated by independent staff. An alternative approach would be exemptions for non-profit sites. I think it would be possible to operate within these broad rules if the details are crafted right, but even then it would require significant adjustments for many site operators.

JoshTriplett 6y ago
> An alternative approach would be exemptions for non-profit sites. Another alternative would be "leave this problem alone, it's working just fine". Site operators can and should have the ability to ban anyone or remove any content, for any reason or no reason, and doing so does not mean they should be liable for everything they might have missed. (In practice, "liable for everything they might have missed" is equivalent to "unable to operate" for anything but the most massive sites that could theoretically afford an army of moderators, and it'd have a chilling effect even there.) Destroying the concept of moderation does not make the world better. The liability shield is the whole reason Section 230 exists: to make it possible to have enjoyable communities online, without incurring so much liability that you have to shut them all down for fear of getting prosecuted. If you want unmoderated communities, they exist. Go use them. Stop trying to destroy the concept of moderated communities.(Removing the liability shield would be tantamount to destroying such communities.) Some people want the audience of moderated communities, but they don't want the standards of those communities. There's a reason unmoderated communities have fewer (and different) users.
- the8472 6y ago
  > Site operators can and should have the ability to ban anyone or remove any content, for any reason or no reason. If a major fraction of human communication, especially during lockdowns, is facilitated by social networks then they are fulfilling a utility role. So being in the position of dictating what millions of people will talk about is at least questionable. > for anything but the most massive sites that could theoretically afford an army of moderators Ok, I have not considered this angle and it is indeed concerning. > Destroying the concept of moderation does not make the world better. That may be the goal of the FCC, but I for one did not say that I am in support of destroying moderation. Quite the opposite, I was thinking how it could be made to work while providing more open communication platforms and putting more control in the hands of the users rather than the companies.
  - JoshTriplett 6y ago
    > If a major fraction of human communication, especially during lockdowns, is facilitated by social networks then they are fulfilling a utility role. Removing the ability of those sites to moderate will not make them better. (Even if it did by some metric, that still wouldn't be acceptable; what constitutes "better" is entirely up to the site owner to determine. But it's even less reasonable given that it wouldn't have the intended effect, unless the intended effect is to cause harm.) Having many users should not suddenly mean you don't own the site, nor should it mean that you cannot moderate the site as you see fit. "We came up with a new algorithm to automatically detect spam" should not need to come with "and several years later we managed to get the government to say we're allowed to use it without incurring liability". >> for anything but the most massive sites that could theoretically afford an army of moderators > Ok, I have not considered this angle and it is indeed concerning. That angle is why Section 230 was created in the first place, and why it should remain intact. > That may be the goal of the FCC, but I for one did not say that I am in support of destroying moderation. Removing the liability shield for sites that moderate will destroy either the site or the moderation, and either way the usefulness of the site comes to an end. > Quite the opposite, I was thinking how it could be made to work while providing more open communication platforms and putting more control in the hands of the users rather than the companies. Make a new network that puts control in the hands of the users in the way you envision, and test it to see how well it works. Or join one of the existing efforts already working on that. This isn't a legislative problem; it certainly shouldn't have a legislative non-solution masquerading as a solution. I think most people's experience with moderation puts more weight on any encounters they've had with being moderated, and little to no weight (except perhaps in the abstract) on the volume of what they don't see. Moderation, when done well, is close to invisible; I think as a side effect of that, people underestimate its value in contributing to their good experiences.
snowwrestler 6y ago
Your ISP is explicitly not a common carrier, thanks to (aptly) an FCC rulemaking conducted under the chairmanship of Ajit Pai.
- the8472 6y ago
  You are assuming I am currently residing in the US. Buy yes, they have been and should be again.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jakelazaroff 6y ago
Let’s say this regulation passes and YC does decide to operate HNaaS. (Presumably they don’t want to, or they’d be doing it already, but under this regulation that’s how they have to operate.) So HN Prime pops up — which is basically HN as it exists today — and then a bunch of smaller constellation communities that allow things that Prime doesn’t, like spam and porn. And that’s different from present situation because…? We already have Twitter Prime (Twitter), as well as the constellation Twitters — Conservative Twitter (Parler), Nazi Twitter (Gab), [Niche Interest] Twitter (various Mastodon people instances), etc. We haven’t fundamentally changed anything; all we’ve done is move the moderation “problem” around a bit.
- the8472 6y ago
  It's not like the sites would continue to exist exactly as they did before only with a different coat of paint. The platformization would likely impact business model - who pays the platform? who makes deals with advertises? do publisher vs. platform rules also apply to the influence that advertisers have on a site? - and changes in moderation tooling provided as part of the platform. It would also separate the financial interests of the platform provider from that of the moderators. I think the actual escape hatch would be enabling users to filter content collaboratively in a way so that there is no entity in the system could be considered a commercial publisher. The platform providers only remove illegal content and the "not a publisher under the law" users do the community-interest moderation rather than corporate-interest moderation. Of course some could still choose to play under publisher rules and allow user submissions, but that wold probably be much smaller scale if they want to be on the safe side and and pre-check things individually. > like spam and porn. I assume (without having checked) that filtering spam would still be allowed even under platform rules.
  - benaadams 6y ago
    You filter spam; and that's censorship. So you'll either end up with a mired cesspool of spam or very strict censorship to reduce legal liability risks.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
triceratops 6y ago
Even "common carriers" don't have to carry everything. ISPs will shut down your Internet if they find you running a server at home (not illegal, but against their ToS). The phone company will do the same thing if they find you used nefarious means to place long-distance calls. The common thread is that they act to prevent misuse of their network. You're arguing that social media companies should not be able to do the same.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > Even "common carriers" don't have to carry everything. Looking at your comments it seems like you at least agree that common carriers are subject to some laws. Great! It seems like you agree with me that there are laws and things that common carriers have to do, and that there is content that they are required to carry some content.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    And yet you don't seem to accept that common carriers perform moderation too. Nor have you acknowledged that ISPs aren't common carriers and the current FCC made it that way. Nor have you acknowledged the hypocrisy of this.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > that common carriers perform moderation I've specifically clarified that common carriers are subject to certain restrictions on what they can do, and am saying that those restrictions should apply to social media, with a law change. > the current FCC My specific claim is that the law should be changed such that they are subject to common carrier laws. Social media companies are not currently subject to them, but I am saying that the law should be changed so that they are. If you want to say that the law should be changed so that ISPs are subject to those as well, then go ahead and argue that, but that does not contradict what I am arguing for. Anyway, I am just glad at this point that you agree that common carriers are subject to certain restrictions, which was my point the whole time. And I am saying that those same restrictions, that you agree exist, should be applied to social media companies, via a law change.