4 ms·

I agree with this. From a libertarian stand point, the gov stepped in to help (rightfully, sometimes we need it) but it was originally written in a way that is

I agree with this. From a libertarian stand point, the gov stepped in to help (rightfully, sometimes we need it) but it was originally written in a way that is now being abused. I don't see a problem changing it so that if you a companies gets to decide what they want to show and not show, they should be liable just like news sites. I'm open to hearing the opposite side if anyone has any arguments on why it shouldn't change

roywiggins 6y ago
From a libertarian standpoint, the government regulating "neutrality" is a nightmare. Should Hacker News be required to treat all links the same? If not, exactly how do you think a government "neutrality" mandate would work? Because such a mandate means that if the HN moderators are a little biased, the whole shebang would become liable for any defamatory comments posted here. That's a government-mandated sword of Damocles hanging over every single moderation decision made here.
- nahtnam 6y ago
  If you falsely slander me, doesn't 230 make it so that Hacker News can't get sued? If the government is protecting the company here, then the government should be able to also enforce rules that come with that benefit right?
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    Maybe, but they can't condition a benefit on "neutrality." Conditioning makes it viewpoint discrimination, which is unconstitutional.
dlp211 6y ago
Well they aren't news sites. They are private entities providing general platforms. Speech, per the US legal system, is more than just what one says, but also the actions one takes. These companies have not only a right, but a duty as publicly traded companies to protect their platforms as they see fit. I fail to see how moderators on vBulletin boards in 2002 are any different then moderators/admins/algorithms on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc in 2020. The scale is different, sure, but you are not entitled to the amplification of these platforms just because they are bigger the same way you weren't entitled to the amplification on those old vBulletin board systems.
- nahtnam 6y ago
  So where do you stand on 230? Are private entities responsible for the content they host? If we repeal 230 and someone posts something falsely defaming me, who do I sue?
  - dlp211 6y ago
    > So where do you stand on 230? I generally support 230. There may be some tweaks that could be made that I would support, but the general concept behind 230 is correct. > Are private entities responsible for the content they host? Generally no. Private entities are responsible for the content that they publish, not for the content that they host. An example being the comment section on a news site versus the news article on a news site. The latter is content that they published, the former is content that they host. > If we repeal 230 and someone posts something falsely defaming me, who do I sue? IANAL but I would imagine if 230 is repealed and some one libels you, you sue the platform and the content creator. If 230 isn't repealed you sue the content creator and ask for an injunction against the platform to remove the content.
    - nahtnam 6y ago
      So if the government is stepping in here and moving the liability from the platform to the content creator as a favor to the company, shouldn't the company be required to not be allowed to selectively allow posts (assuming it is legal content and related). I.e. why cant The New York Times call themselves a platform and just post whatever they want? Where would you draw the line?
      - davorak 6y ago
        > I.e. why cant The New York Times call themselves a platform and just post whatever they want? Where would you draw the line? IANL even if they called themselves a platform they would still be acting as a publisher and the law would treat them as such. For example they would be editing and curating content, paying for content from writers, and making the material available under their own name.
TameAntelope 6y ago
Can you help me understand why selectively removing content from a privately owned website is considered "abuse"?
- nahtnam 6y ago
  So if the company hosts false information against me (that a user posted), I can sue them?
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    I think you can sue the individual, based on my reading of Section 230, but I'm no lawyer. I don't see how that explains why it's "abuse" for a company to selectively remove content from their website, however.
triceratops 6y ago
From a libertarian standpoint forced "neutrality" (scare quotes intended) is an infringement on the property and free speech rights of the platforms. You are not entitled to use my property against my will to endorse viewpoints that I disagree with, and the government should not force me to comply.
- nahtnam 6y ago
  So in that case are you against 230? If someone falsely defames me, who do I sue?
  - davorak 6y ago
    > If someone falsely defames me, who do I sue? You would sue the person who defamed you today.

roywiggins 6y ago

From a libertarian standpoint, the government regulating "neutrality" is a nightmare. Should Hacker News be required to treat all links the same? If not, exactly how do you think a government "neutrality" mandate would work? Because such a mandate means that if the HN moderators are a little biased, the whole shebang would become liable for any defamatory comments posted here. That's a government-mandated sword of Damocles hanging over every single moderation decision made here.

nahtnam 6y ago
If you falsely slander me, doesn't 230 make it so that Hacker News can't get sued? If the government is protecting the company here, then the government should be able to also enforce rules that come with that benefit right?
- roywiggins 6y ago
  Maybe, but they can't condition a benefit on "neutrality." Conditioning makes it viewpoint discrimination, which is unconstitutional.

dlp211 6y ago

Well they aren't news sites. They are private entities providing general platforms. Speech, per the US legal system, is more than just what one says, but also the actions one takes. These companies have not only a right, but a duty as publicly traded companies to protect their platforms as they see fit. I fail to see how moderators on vBulletin boards in 2002 are any different then moderators/admins/algorithms on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc in 2020. The scale is different, sure, but you are not entitled to the amplification of these platforms just because they are bigger the same way you weren't entitled to the amplification on those old vBulletin board systems.

nahtnam 6y ago
So where do you stand on 230? Are private entities responsible for the content they host? If we repeal 230 and someone posts something falsely defaming me, who do I sue?
- dlp211 6y ago
  > So where do you stand on 230? I generally support 230. There may be some tweaks that could be made that I would support, but the general concept behind 230 is correct. > Are private entities responsible for the content they host? Generally no. Private entities are responsible for the content that they publish, not for the content that they host. An example being the comment section on a news site versus the news article on a news site. The latter is content that they published, the former is content that they host. > If we repeal 230 and someone posts something falsely defaming me, who do I sue? IANAL but I would imagine if 230 is repealed and some one libels you, you sue the platform and the content creator. If 230 isn't repealed you sue the content creator and ask for an injunction against the platform to remove the content.
  - nahtnam 6y ago
    So if the government is stepping in here and moving the liability from the platform to the content creator as a favor to the company, shouldn't the company be required to not be allowed to selectively allow posts (assuming it is legal content and related). I.e. why cant The New York Times call themselves a platform and just post whatever they want? Where would you draw the line?
    - davorak 6y ago
      > I.e. why cant The New York Times call themselves a platform and just post whatever they want? Where would you draw the line? IANL even if they called themselves a platform they would still be acting as a publisher and the law would treat them as such. For example they would be editing and curating content, paying for content from writers, and making the material available under their own name.

TameAntelope 6y ago

Can you help me understand why selectively removing content from a privately owned website is considered "abuse"?

nahtnam 6y ago
So if the company hosts false information against me (that a user posted), I can sue them?
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  I think you can sue the individual, based on my reading of Section 230, but I'm no lawyer. I don't see how that explains why it's "abuse" for a company to selectively remove content from their website, however.

triceratops 6y ago

From a libertarian standpoint forced "neutrality" (scare quotes intended) is an infringement on the property and free speech rights of the platforms. You are not entitled to use my property against my will to endorse viewpoints that I disagree with, and the government should not force me to comply.

nahtnam 6y ago
So in that case are you against 230? If someone falsely defames me, who do I sue?
- davorak 6y ago
  > If someone falsely defames me, who do I sue? You would sue the person who defamed you today.