5 ms·

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

by 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.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  >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. Let me go out on a limb here and say that no-one is going onto Facebook looking to find misinformation. They may be looking for stories that appeal to their prejudices and be willing to suspend disbelief for those stories. But no-one is going to tick the box saying "please show me stuff that is actually definitively false, and potentially dangerous to my person". So the problem will simply move along to how the "misinformation" tag is being applied and the biases at play there.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > But no-one is going to tick the box Completely disagree. I would absolutely tick that box, as would many other people, specifically because we don't necessarily automatically trust whatever authority is "deciding" what is misinformation or not. Instead, I would prefer to research an issue, by looking at multiple sides, and make a judgement, as opposed to having some minister of truth controlling what I am or am not allowed to read. > is being applied and the biases at play there. But the point is, that if you don't trust a certain group or source's opinion on what "misinformation" is, then you could choose a different authority on that. IE, the tags for what is or is not "misinformation", would be community controlled, and you could pick which community or group to use as the "source" for this tag.
guscost 6y ago
Since the alternative is leading us toward actual violent war, I say “make HN choose between moderation and immunity too, if we must” without hesitation. “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” - Sam Adams
- eli 6y ago
  There are infinitely more alternatives that aren’t “gut 230” or “do nothing.” Why is this the starting point when it will affect so many sites that we all agree aren’t doing anything wrong. You want to propose a law that regulates Facebook let’s talk about that directly.
  - guscost 6y ago
    Agreed. But if the alternatives (maybe a size/reach threshold above which the laws change?) were to fail, I would rather see every online community become 4chan, than actual violent war. Hopefully things turn out better than either extreme case.
  - 75dvtwin 6y ago
    Well, I propose that FB and HN either apply ToS rules uniformly, or stop claiming a 'neutral platform' status. Another analogy: if you are a for-profit business, do not claim Charity status. It is criminal if you do.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Since the alternative is leading us toward actual violent war, I say “make HN choose between moderation and immunity too, if we must” without hesitation. Just the opposite. Companies unwillingness to intervene did so. Your opinion may be different, but it's nothing more, and suggesting we deny people their civil liberties based on your hunch is a dangerous line of thinking.
  - 6y ago
75dvtwin 6y ago
If HN, or Twitter or FB, selectively apply their 'Terms of Service' in a way that reduces access to pro-conservative positions -- then they are not a neutral platform. If they are not a neutral platform, they cannot claim shields of section 230. It is like for a business that hides money in a Organization with a Charity status. We would have that business facing criminal charges in no time. Why the execs of these platforms demand something different ?
- root_axis 6y ago
  Explicit partisan bias is legally protected speech. The conservatives you refer to have no problem with bias when it comes to the mediums they dominate (cable news, talk radio), but when it comes to the wide open internet they now want to bring back the fairness doctrine, as if it's even possible to establish consistent standards for the political composition of a given post on the internet.
  - 75dvtwin 6y ago
    Of course it is. So is a 'for-profit business' is a perfectly fine thing. But having a for-profit business using tax code for a non-profit charity -- would be criminal. So why does 230 or other shields apply to Twitter or HN or FB? My point I think more that a social networking company can apply crowdsourced or individual editorialization to political speech. And that application can also be biased, selective and therefore unfair. It is ok that these companies might do that, but not OK to hide under shields meant for the companies that do not do that (like ISPs)
    - root_axis 6y ago
      > It is ok that these companies might do that, but not OK to hide under shields meant for the companies that do not do that (like ISPs) What shields? What kind of consequences do you imagine these sites should face for biased content moderation?
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  That is not how Section 230 works. It has nothing to do with “neutrality” — it simply shields platforms from liability for legal content created by third parties.
jimmygrapes 6y ago
I wonder whether it would suffice to just have a link to the NSFW/L "Unmoderated" version and remove only that which has valid legal complaints (e.g. DMCA) or illegal content (which should also be made very clear by the lawmakers, in an easy and feasible way to implement, but that's a tangent).

by eli 6y ago

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.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
>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. Let me go out on a limb here and say that no-one is going onto Facebook looking to find misinformation. They may be looking for stories that appeal to their prejudices and be willing to suspend disbelief for those stories. But no-one is going to tick the box saying "please show me stuff that is actually definitively false, and potentially dangerous to my person". So the problem will simply move along to how the "misinformation" tag is being applied and the biases at play there.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > But no-one is going to tick the box Completely disagree. I would absolutely tick that box, as would many other people, specifically because we don't necessarily automatically trust whatever authority is "deciding" what is misinformation or not. Instead, I would prefer to research an issue, by looking at multiple sides, and make a judgement, as opposed to having some minister of truth controlling what I am or am not allowed to read. > is being applied and the biases at play there. But the point is, that if you don't trust a certain group or source's opinion on what "misinformation" is, then you could choose a different authority on that. IE, the tags for what is or is not "misinformation", would be community controlled, and you could pick which community or group to use as the "source" for this tag.

guscost 6y ago

Since the alternative is leading us toward actual violent war, I say “make HN choose between moderation and immunity too, if we must” without hesitation. “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” - Sam Adams

eli 6y ago
There are infinitely more alternatives that aren’t “gut 230” or “do nothing.” Why is this the starting point when it will affect so many sites that we all agree aren’t doing anything wrong. You want to propose a law that regulates Facebook let’s talk about that directly.
- guscost 6y ago
  Agreed. But if the alternatives (maybe a size/reach threshold above which the laws change?) were to fail, I would rather see every online community become 4chan, than actual violent war. Hopefully things turn out better than either extreme case.
- 75dvtwin 6y ago
  Well, I propose that FB and HN either apply ToS rules uniformly, or stop claiming a 'neutral platform' status. Another analogy: if you are a for-profit business, do not claim Charity status. It is criminal if you do.
joshuamorton 6y ago
> Since the alternative is leading us toward actual violent war, I say “make HN choose between moderation and immunity too, if we must” without hesitation. Just the opposite. Companies unwillingness to intervene did so. Your opinion may be different, but it's nothing more, and suggesting we deny people their civil liberties based on your hunch is a dangerous line of thinking.
- 6y ago

75dvtwin 6y ago

If HN, or Twitter or FB, selectively apply their 'Terms of Service' in a way that reduces access to pro-conservative positions -- then they are not a neutral platform. If they are not a neutral platform, they cannot claim shields of section 230. It is like for a business that hides money in a Organization with a Charity status. We would have that business facing criminal charges in no time. Why the execs of these platforms demand something different ?

root_axis 6y ago
Explicit partisan bias is legally protected speech. The conservatives you refer to have no problem with bias when it comes to the mediums they dominate (cable news, talk radio), but when it comes to the wide open internet they now want to bring back the fairness doctrine, as if it's even possible to establish consistent standards for the political composition of a given post on the internet.
- 75dvtwin 6y ago
  Of course it is. So is a 'for-profit business' is a perfectly fine thing. But having a for-profit business using tax code for a non-profit charity -- would be criminal. So why does 230 or other shields apply to Twitter or HN or FB? My point I think more that a social networking company can apply crowdsourced or individual editorialization to political speech. And that application can also be biased, selective and therefore unfair. It is ok that these companies might do that, but not OK to hide under shields meant for the companies that do not do that (like ISPs)
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > It is ok that these companies might do that, but not OK to hide under shields meant for the companies that do not do that (like ISPs) What shields? What kind of consequences do you imagine these sites should face for biased content moderation?
jakelazaroff 6y ago
That is not how Section 230 works. It has nothing to do with “neutrality” — it simply shields platforms from liability for legal content created by third parties.

jimmygrapes 6y ago

I wonder whether it would suffice to just have a link to the NSFW/L "Unmoderated" version and remove only that which has valid legal complaints (e.g. DMCA) or illegal content (which should also be made very clear by the lawmakers, in an easy and feasible way to implement, but that's a tangent).