7 ms·

Disagree. Newspapers and ISP follow under this regulation. Social media networks have been able to skirt the issue. If newspapers can get sued for their content

Disagree. Newspapers and ISP follow under this regulation. Social media networks have been able to skirt the issue. If newspapers can get sued for their content and the phone company can't, it only makes sense that this applies to social media companies are held to the same liabilities or protections.

mrtksn 6y ago
Sure, the issue is that now it is technically possible To do much more. With the phone company it’s impractical to listen to every conversation and “eliminate the threats”, it is practical with the internet. EU wants upload filters(stop singing “happy birthday” to your friend, that needs lives), UK want porn and crypto control(no dirty talk on the phone, no secretive talks, must speak load and clear). Turkey wants to control the narrative(An operator jumps in your phone conversation to correct you or stop you talking). I am sure That US, Canada, Norway , Iran, India etc all have their own agenda too and would loved to control your phone conversations. As for the liability, it’s already here. A lot of people are serving time or paying damages for the things they did on the internet. The new stuff is to make it controllable at scale.
- Kbelicius 6y ago
  > EU wants upload filter This is not true. In fact, the document you are thinking of explicitly states that its application shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation.
eli 6y ago
I don’t understand what outcome you are seeking here. Clearly social media companies can’t prescreen every piece of content so either you want them to all go out of business or you want to forbid them from moderating even to delete spam. There are already forums with “zero” moderation and there’s a reason all discussion hasn’t migrated there.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > or you want to forbid them from moderating The goal would be to put significant, very large restictions on their ability to moderate. > There are already forums with “zero” moderation How about we look at other examples of communication platforms, that are working perfectly fine. Just take a look at the phone network, or ISPs. ISPs and phone networks, have very little "moderation" from the parent company, and yet seem to work pretty well, IMO. Why can't we treat other communication platforms, the same way that we are treating the large and successful communication platform, which is the phone network?
  - eli 6y ago
    Because a discussion forum is not the same as a phone network. It just isn’t. Why would the rules that govern the phone network make sense to apply to Wikipedia? It’s weird to be having this argument on one of the very forums that benefits from 230. Do you think HN would be a better place if it were forbidden from moderating content? Were you here before dang came along? Can you imagine how much spam gets deleted before we see it and how unusable it would be if it didn’t? And not for nothing but I wish my phone company would do an better job of moderating the junk calls and spam texts I get. But set the phone company metaphor aside: I still don’t understand what outcome you want for social media. How do you imagine it will look? Or is this actually intended to put them all out of business? If so, taking down every comment section and discussion board seems like a lot of collateral damage.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > Why would the rules that govern the phone network make sense to apply to Wikipedia? Because it is a platform? I don't see a problem with enforcing neutrality on platforms, in the same way that I don't see a problem with enforcing it on my phone company, or my ISP. > Do you think HN would be a better place I think the old school reddit model is a reasonable goal to aim for for these types of platforms. (yes reddit has taken down some communities as of late, but lets assume that this didn't happen, to clarify the example) IE, delegating moderation to users, but allowing communities in general to be created, with their own sets of rules, feels pretty fair and neutral. > I still don’t understand what outcome you want for social media. How do you imagine it will look? The model would be that any form of "moderation" on non-illegal content would be driven entirely by users, or communities of users. IE, we can still allow people to do things like have shared block lists, or even curated communities within that platform, as long as other users are also able to create their own communities on that platform, that ignore those sets of rules. Users could still make the choice to have certain rules, or moderation, if that is what they want. Or, in other words, the reddit model, but without reddit removing non-illegal communities (which, to be fair, doesn't happen that often on reddit anyway. Reddit still mostly tries to be neutral, and they do an ok job with it) EX: if a user doesn't want to see NSFW stuff, or trolling, or "misinformation", or any other offensive content, then there could be general categories, that describe those things, and the user can have that as a setting to not see that stuff.
webmaven 6y ago
> Disagree. Newspapers and ISP follow under this regulation. Social media networks have been able to skirt the issue. If newspapers can get sued for their content and the phone company can't, it only makes sense that this applies to social media companies are held to the same liabilities or protections. Okay, I'll bite. Should newspapers be liable (that is, able to be sued) for a letter to the editor they publish? How about a comment someone leaves on their website?
- happythomist 6y ago
  > Should newspapers be liable (that is, able to be sued) for a letter to the editor they publish? Why shouldn't they? If the letter is libelous, then they're responsible for distributing it to a larger audience.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    But is distribution sufficient to trigger liability? Printing a letter to the editor isn't authoring it, after all. The newspaper is exercising some editorial control in that letters to the editor are not all printed, but it isn't endorsement per-se, just a judgement that there is some public interest in making it available. Any liability for libel should surely lie with the letter's author rather than the newspaper. I also note that you ignored the latter half of my question.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > I also note that you ignored the latter half of my question. In case you weren't aware, the answer, currently, to the second half of your question, is that they aren't liable for a website comment, due to section 230. As for the first half of your question, the newspaper affirmatively chooses to publish the letter. That's where they get the liability. The website does not, it simply fails to censor it.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > How about a comment someone leaves on their website? IIUC they actually aren't responsible for that since they didn't write or publish it.
75dvtwin 6y ago
You are right. We must not have individual-editorial, or crowdsorced-editorial social networks, treated as 'neutral platforms' when it comes to political or legal content -- basically anything that directly affects political candidates in the country(s) where HN has its main offices. It is like having a for-profit business hiding under a non-profit tax umbrella. If HN cannot figure out now to avoid editoralization of polical opinions (either by crowdsource or moderators), then do not allow political content. If HN wants to allow political content, and wants to allow the edtorialization function -- then do not hide behind 'neutral platform'.

mrtksn 6y ago

Sure, the issue is that now it is technically possible To do much more. With the phone company it’s impractical to listen to every conversation and “eliminate the threats”, it is practical with the internet. EU wants upload filters(stop singing “happy birthday” to your friend, that needs lives), UK want porn and crypto control(no dirty talk on the phone, no secretive talks, must speak load and clear). Turkey wants to control the narrative(An operator jumps in your phone conversation to correct you or stop you talking). I am sure That US, Canada, Norway , Iran, India etc all have their own agenda too and would loved to control your phone conversations. As for the liability, it’s already here. A lot of people are serving time or paying damages for the things they did on the internet. The new stuff is to make it controllable at scale.

Kbelicius 6y ago
> EU wants upload filter This is not true. In fact, the document you are thinking of explicitly states that its application shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation.

eli 6y ago

I don’t understand what outcome you are seeking here. Clearly social media companies can’t prescreen every piece of content so either you want them to all go out of business or you want to forbid them from moderating even to delete spam. There are already forums with “zero” moderation and there’s a reason all discussion hasn’t migrated there.

stale2002 6y ago
> or you want to forbid them from moderating The goal would be to put significant, very large restictions on their ability to moderate. > There are already forums with “zero” moderation How about we look at other examples of communication platforms, that are working perfectly fine. Just take a look at the phone network, or ISPs. ISPs and phone networks, have very little "moderation" from the parent company, and yet seem to work pretty well, IMO. Why can't we treat other communication platforms, the same way that we are treating the large and successful communication platform, which is the phone network?
- eli 6y ago
  Because a discussion forum is not the same as a phone network. It just isn’t. Why would the rules that govern the phone network make sense to apply to Wikipedia? It’s weird to be having this argument on one of the very forums that benefits from 230. Do you think HN would be a better place if it were forbidden from moderating content? Were you here before dang came along? Can you imagine how much spam gets deleted before we see it and how unusable it would be if it didn’t? And not for nothing but I wish my phone company would do an better job of moderating the junk calls and spam texts I get. But set the phone company metaphor aside: I still don’t understand what outcome you want for social media. How do you imagine it will look? Or is this actually intended to put them all out of business? If so, taking down every comment section and discussion board seems like a lot of collateral damage.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > Why would the rules that govern the phone network make sense to apply to Wikipedia? Because it is a platform? I don't see a problem with enforcing neutrality on platforms, in the same way that I don't see a problem with enforcing it on my phone company, or my ISP. > Do you think HN would be a better place I think the old school reddit model is a reasonable goal to aim for for these types of platforms. (yes reddit has taken down some communities as of late, but lets assume that this didn't happen, to clarify the example) IE, delegating moderation to users, but allowing communities in general to be created, with their own sets of rules, feels pretty fair and neutral. > I still don’t understand what outcome you want for social media. How do you imagine it will look? The model would be that any form of "moderation" on non-illegal content would be driven entirely by users, or communities of users. IE, we can still allow people to do things like have shared block lists, or even curated communities within that platform, as long as other users are also able to create their own communities on that platform, that ignore those sets of rules. Users could still make the choice to have certain rules, or moderation, if that is what they want. Or, in other words, the reddit model, but without reddit removing non-illegal communities (which, to be fair, doesn't happen that often on reddit anyway. Reddit still mostly tries to be neutral, and they do an ok job with it) EX: if a user doesn't want to see NSFW stuff, or trolling, or "misinformation", or any other offensive content, then there could be general categories, that describe those things, and the user can have that as a setting to not see that stuff.

webmaven 6y ago

> Disagree. Newspapers and ISP follow under this regulation. Social media networks have been able to skirt the issue. If newspapers can get sued for their content and the phone company can't, it only makes sense that this applies to social media companies are held to the same liabilities or protections. Okay, I'll bite. Should newspapers be liable (that is, able to be sued) for a letter to the editor they publish? How about a comment someone leaves on their website?

happythomist 6y ago
> Should newspapers be liable (that is, able to be sued) for a letter to the editor they publish? Why shouldn't they? If the letter is libelous, then they're responsible for distributing it to a larger audience.
- webmaven 6y ago
  But is distribution sufficient to trigger liability? Printing a letter to the editor isn't authoring it, after all. The newspaper is exercising some editorial control in that letters to the editor are not all printed, but it isn't endorsement per-se, just a judgement that there is some public interest in making it available. Any liability for libel should surely lie with the letter's author rather than the newspaper. I also note that you ignored the latter half of my question.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > I also note that you ignored the latter half of my question. In case you weren't aware, the answer, currently, to the second half of your question, is that they aren't liable for a website comment, due to section 230. As for the first half of your question, the newspaper affirmatively chooses to publish the letter. That's where they get the liability. The website does not, it simply fails to censor it.
triceratops 6y ago
> How about a comment someone leaves on their website? IIUC they actually aren't responsible for that since they didn't write or publish it.

75dvtwin 6y ago

You are right. We must not have individual-editorial, or crowdsorced-editorial social networks, treated as 'neutral platforms' when it comes to political or legal content -- basically anything that directly affects political candidates in the country(s) where HN has its main offices. It is like having a for-profit business hiding under a non-profit tax umbrella. If HN cannot figure out now to avoid editoralization of polical opinions (either by crowdsource or moderators), then do not allow political content. If HN wants to allow political content, and wants to allow the edtorialization function -- then do not hide behind 'neutral platform'.