4 ms·
That would make Hacker News liable for any defamation posted in the comments section. Well done, you just killed HN.
by roywiggins 6y ago
That would make Hacker News liable for any defamation posted in the comments section. Well done, you just killed HN.
- LegitShady 6y agoshrug if thats the cost of stopping technocratic control of the flow of information in society and openly censoring, its cheap.
- roywiggins 6y agoThrowing out all online discussion fora is rather throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The replacement would be centralized media companies that have total and absolute control over information flow. Goodbye Mastodon (every Mastodon instance is liable for all toots). Goodbye Internet Archive (can't host content that might be defamatory, they'll be liable). Goodbye GitHub pull requests (Git would be liable for any defamation contained in them). And so on.
- LegitShady 6y agoI would happily see all of those things go away to make sure Silicon Valley can't control who sees what. It's not that I don't understand the value of those things, its that I see the value of not having information in society be controlled by a few companies as having far larger value.
- roywiggins 6y agoIf you choke off user-generated content, the remaining content will be directly produced by Disney and other media conglomerates. That's not better, that's worse. The only people able to blog, for instance, would be people who have the technical chops to completely self-host. Everyone else would be reduced to handing out flyers on the corner like the bad old days. The behemoth old-media companies would be fine, because they can afford lawyers to go over everything they publish. Not only would it not be worth it, repealing section 230 would consolidate behemoth media companies' control, not break it. It would do the absolute opposite of what you want.