4 ms·

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 y

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.
- guscost 6y ago
  > deny people their civil liberties Are you saying that a special immunity from prosecution, granted to particular businesses, is a civil liberty? Or is this some kind of “freedom from being offended/misinformed” newspeak? I can’t think of another interpretation where what I am proposing does anything but preserve civil liberties.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > Are you saying that a special immunity from prosecution, granted to particular businesses, is a civil liberty? I think that moderation is a consequence of the rights to speech and association. The ability to choose what content you host, and whose content you host, is a consequence of those rights. Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, whomever, cannot violate your civil liberties. Only the government can do that. And when they pass laws that, de facto, restrict the ability of companies to associate and speak freely, they restrict those essential liberties. Section 230 ensured civil liberties, both Facebook's, and yours, and mine. It means that anyone who wants to can create a website for broadcasting and discussion q-anon conspiracies theories, and they can ban anyone who chooses to disagree. But just the same, I can prevent those people from posting things on my website.
    - guscost 6y ago
      > I think that moderation is a consequence of the rights to speech and association. The ability to choose what content you host, and whose content you host, is a consequence of those rights. The right to speech does not mean that you are also immune from libel laws. That’s the controversial part, Facebook enjoys both the rights (plus consequences), and a special immunity under Section 230 that does not apply to any other kind of speech. > And when they pass laws that, de facto, restrict the ability of companies to associate and speak freely, they restrict those essential liberties. Do you think that being banned from Facebook does not also restrict an individual’s ability to associate and speak freely, in 2020? > Section 230 ensured civil liberties, both Facebook's, and yours, and mine. I’m sure lawmakers are hearing this exact line from lobbyists, but it rings hollow. One of those is clearly not like the others, and perhaps the law should favor “yours and mine”.

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.

guscost 6y ago
> deny people their civil liberties Are you saying that a special immunity from prosecution, granted to particular businesses, is a civil liberty? Or is this some kind of “freedom from being offended/misinformed” newspeak? I can’t think of another interpretation where what I am proposing does anything but preserve civil liberties.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Are you saying that a special immunity from prosecution, granted to particular businesses, is a civil liberty? I think that moderation is a consequence of the rights to speech and association. The ability to choose what content you host, and whose content you host, is a consequence of those rights. Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, whomever, cannot violate your civil liberties. Only the government can do that. And when they pass laws that, de facto, restrict the ability of companies to associate and speak freely, they restrict those essential liberties. Section 230 ensured civil liberties, both Facebook's, and yours, and mine. It means that anyone who wants to can create a website for broadcasting and discussion q-anon conspiracies theories, and they can ban anyone who chooses to disagree. But just the same, I can prevent those people from posting things on my website.
  - guscost 6y ago
    > I think that moderation is a consequence of the rights to speech and association. The ability to choose what content you host, and whose content you host, is a consequence of those rights. The right to speech does not mean that you are also immune from libel laws. That’s the controversial part, Facebook enjoys both the rights (plus consequences), and a special immunity under Section 230 that does not apply to any other kind of speech. > And when they pass laws that, de facto, restrict the ability of companies to associate and speak freely, they restrict those essential liberties. Do you think that being banned from Facebook does not also restrict an individual’s ability to associate and speak freely, in 2020? > Section 230 ensured civil liberties, both Facebook's, and yours, and mine. I’m sure lawmakers are hearing this exact line from lobbyists, but it rings hollow. One of those is clearly not like the others, and perhaps the law should favor “yours and mine”.