7 ms·

I'm having a moment here where I am considering this from another viewpoint. While I hate the idea of siding with Ted Cruz on literally anything I want to take

I'm having a moment here where I am considering this from another viewpoint. While I hate the idea of siding with Ted Cruz on literally anything I want to take a moment to really consider something. Section 230 makes sites like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Youtube, Instagram and even Hacker News possible. Revoking Section 230 could expose those platforms to the possibility of liability for content posted on them. This might cause a re-shaping of the Internet in general. Part of me seriously wonders - would that necessarily be a bad thing? I am not convinced, by any stretch of the imagination, that these social media opinion aggregation platforms are universally positive. Everyone keeps acting like the existence of Facebook somehow democratizes content publishing for the masses, even when we are faced with clear evidence that this isn't the case. The centralized nature of Facebook actually allows for larger scale manipulation of the narrative. And how would this affect Uber, Airbnb, Amazon, Netflix and other sites? I suppose opening them up to liability for negative reviews could be a problem. I'm thinking on the fly here, but if Facebook just disappeared off of the Internet tomorrow - I'm not really sure I would mourn that. And if new Internet companies were burdened with stricter moderation requirements (or the need to stand behind every piece of content posted onto their site), maybe that would actually be good? Maybe that would drive people to create their own websites once again. I'm sure I haven't thought deeply enough on this but I definitely feel the tide here is a knee-jerk protection of Section 230. Yet the companies it protects the most are the ones I feel are the worst.

klyrs 6y ago
Would the forums of yesteryear survive? The early 2000s saw a veritable utopia of information sharing, as people with special interests came online and formed groups to discuss and collaborate on those interests. Would the open source software community survive? My world revolves around github more than any other site; would ticket discussions be forced back to mailing lists? Would mail readers pick that slack up, and re-implement social media over email?
- reggieband 6y ago
  > Would the forums of yesteryear survive? I know this is questioning some fundamental assumptions of most of our moral principals, but I am literally questioning: should they survive? It seems everyone is assuming that they should. Some seem to suggest they should for abstract "free speech at all costs" philosophy. Others are assuming they have some kind of positive effect, either on personal growth or economic activity. > Would the open source software community survive? I'm not sure how Section 230 applies to code but I don't think public forums like Facebook, Twitter or Youtube are necessary for open source software to continue (any more than they were necessary for it to start, which happened long before they existed). Besides, what I'm pondering is the centralized aggregation points. People could still host blogs, they are just directly liable for the content they post (as they likely are now).
  - giantrobot 6y ago
    You keep harping on Facebook et al but you're ignoring everyone pointing out that Section 230 protects everyone at all scales. Without Section 230 exceptions there's no protection for any type of user generated content. That means no user reviews of anything. No user contributed information so no more Wikipedia or OpenStreetMaps. No Wikis of any kind in fact. No hosting of public data sets for ML research. Forums would be a liability nightmare so they would go away. Not only would current/new instances of user generated content make sites liable but hosting any historical co rent as well. So to avoid liability the web would have to be scraped clean of user generated content. Facebook and other large sites would be the only ones to survive because they could afford a moderator army. Your extremely short sighted position would basically leave only large content producers. The Internet would regress to the curated Online Service model but worse because user communication would need to be disallowed over heavily moderated. You're advocating for the Internet to turn into broadcast television. It's sad that you either can't or won't accept that implication.
    - reggieband 6y ago
      Why do you suppose the only way user content can possibly be shared on the Internet is through content aggregation sites? I am suggesting this is a blindspot we've all fallen into that may have created the monsters we are now fighting to protect. > Your extremely short sighted position I am getting this a lot in this comment section so far. I mean, hey we should all be thick-skinned, right? My disagreement with your conclusions or predictions of what would happen doesn't mean I suffer from myopia and it isn't very polite to suggest otherwise. Central aggregation of user generated content isn't the only possible mechanism to do anything on the Internet. Removing the legal protections for aggregators may slow growth and make it significantly more difficult to centrally aggregate content, but that might actually be a good thing.
eli 6y ago
I promise you that there are options between "do nothing" and "remove the legal foundation crucial to the development of the participatory internet."
spiffytech 6y ago
Remember that Section 230 isn't just about the big, centralized services. It protects everybody who's ever run a phpBB forum for their little community, or allowed comments on their blog, or set up a Mastodon instance they share with others. If you host content written by someone else, Section 230 is what allows you to moderate it, and what prevents you from being legally liable for it. Proposals requiring "political neutrality" even add new burdens to be compliant with; your friend on your Mastodon ranting about "that politician" probably isn't "neutral" publishing. Facebook et al. could be big enough to wrangle the regulatory burden of existing without these protections. But many proposed 230 "reforms" could scare off anyone smaller, creating a regulatory moat that keeps Facebook at the top in perpetuity.
- reggieband 6y ago
  Yes, believe it or not I am questioning whether or not I should be free from liability if I host a public forum. And my conclusion is: perhaps I should be liable if I stand up a public forum. You may suggest that would prevent me from creating a user-generated-content application of massive scale without the resources to sufficiently moderate it. And again, yes - maybe that should be a requirement of me doing such a thing. It isn't like the only kind of business a person could create on the internet is one that surrounds the aggregation of user generated content. If it killed that entire class of business ... I am not sure we would lose very much of value that couldn't be replaced by individuals hosting their own content.
  - spiffytech 6y ago
    > of massive scale Of even tiny, microscopic scale. Even your personal blog's comments, or the forum for your local club. And it _still_ won't stop Facebook. It'll only stop _you_. That outcome doesn't sound like the outcome you're saying you may be comfortable with. It sounds like the opposite.
    - reggieband 6y ago
      > That outcome doesn't sound like the outcome you're saying you may be comfortable with. Oh no, I'm considering exactly that. I am saying: if my tiny personal blog has a comment section I would be liable for comments posted there. If that is a burden I can't handle then I should turn off comments. At least in my experience those comment sections are a complete waste of space anyway and the trend I've noticed from the large blogs that are still around (e.g. daringfireball, kottke) is that their comment sections are long gone anyway. What I am pondering is: would this ruin the Internet? If I couldn't host a public forum if it got beyond my limited means to moderate? If I couldn't have a public comment section? It doesn't seem clear to me the Internet breaks if I am forced to own the responsibility for those things that I allow to be made public through sites I control.
originalvichy 6y ago
>Section 230 makes sites like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Youtube, Instagram and even Hacker News possible. Revoking Section 230 could expose those platforms to the possibility of liability for content posted on them. This might cause a re-shaping of the Internet in general. >Part of me seriously wonders - would that necessarily be a bad thing? I am not convinced, by any stretch of the imagination, that these social media opinion aggregation platforms are universally positive. Here's where you are wrong to think this. It doesn't protect social media giants, Hacker News and news websites. It protects literally everyone on the internet in the USA. Thanks to this law you can't be held liable if you have a blog with a comment section. Anyone can post anything there and you could be at serious risk of legal trouble if someone posted something that breaks the law on your website. Any communal website would either a) move out of the US and b) probably require some very strict controls on who can post and what. The law doesn't protect American giants, it protects everyone that uses the internet to discuss. I suggest you read this blog post on the issue, especially this part: ""If you said "Section 230 is a massive gift to big tech!" Once again, I must inform you that you are very, very wrong. There is nothing in Section 230 that applies solely to big tech. Indeed, it applies to every website on the internet and every user of those websites."" https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
- reggieband 6y ago
  > It protects literally everyone on the internet in the USA. I think this is the kind of knee-jerk hyperbole I want people to really think deeply about. > Thanks to this law you can't be held liable if you have a blog with a comment section. Maybe that should not be protected. If I am unable/unwilling to moderate the comment section of a blog I host then maybe I should't have one. I do not believe a completely open free-speech comment section is a requirement of a good or successful blog. Also, there is a business opportunity for those who want comment sections to pay for moderation services. > I must inform you that you are very, very wrong. This kind of patronizing is neither useful nor conducive to mature discussion. Aggregate user-generated-content sites aren't some kind of holy thing, forums, comment sections or otherwise. I want people to consider the fact that we may all be fine without them at all. Nothing stops people from posting whatever content they want on their own site. It just discourages aggregation of other people's content.
cwhiz 6y ago
I’m with you. I think we would all be better off without forums for people to anonymously yell at each other. If Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit all disappeared tomorrow it would be an enormous win for American citizens. The path to unification and healing does not run through big tech. And yes, I understand that it would also be the end of HN. I accept that.
malwrar 6y ago
> Yet the companies it protects the most are the ones I feel are the worst. Assessing legal risk of user-generated content is a financial barrier that only the companies you feel are the worst will be able to overcome. We're discussing law in the comments here like we're all lawyers but let's face it--very few of us are up to the task of determining what is and is not illegal, and even fewer of us could actually survive if that assessment was challenged. User generated content ends up having a massive upfront legal cost, and I predict it will become extinct (both future and retroactive) for US-based sites if Section 230 is repealed... > The centralized nature of Facebook actually allows for larger scale manipulation of the narrative. ...except on sites like Facebook, who make unimaginable amounts of money and can likely afford to fund private development of automoderation software and can weather the storm of lawsuits for content that manages to evade the filter. Facebook will only become more centralized as other online communication platforms are unable to bear the costs of publishing user generated content, and their control over the narrative will increase. > Maybe that would drive people to create their own websites once again. Sure, but how are people going to find these websites if I'm effectively reliant on the tech giants to tell people about it? Do you trust Facebook to not start censoring links to external websites? If there's no Section 230, then they could easily justify censoring off-site linking by saying they can't moderate the content of uncontrolled sites. How is Google going to exist if it's liable for what it links to? How are content aggregators going to exist? Forums? Chat rooms? > Facebook just disappeared off of the Internet tomorrow - I'm not really sure I would mourn that Same, but Facebook's not going anywhere. It'll just start charging its billions of users directly and continue telling me what I can and cannot read according to the whims of people I don't know and have no influence over. Meanwhile, all of my other options for discussion will slowly start disappearing as it becomes too costly to continue operating. There are better options than allowing that future to happen.
- reggieband 6y ago
  > We're discussing law in the comments here like we're all lawyers Even worse, we are discussing the future social effects of changes to law as if we were psychics. Not even lawyers or the best judges could claim to do that correctly. The default position seems to be "revoking Section 230 will ruin the Internet". I'm honestly trying to see how and I just don't see it. It would change the Internet and it would make certain classes of business more difficult. > Facebook will only become more centralized as other online communication platforms are unable to bear the costs of publishing user generated content I don't see a substantial change in Facebook's position either way. Is everyone still waiting for Mastodon to usurp it? Or maybe we dream of some young, ethical startup to win the hearts and minds of the globe and show us all how to be benevolent in this space? The idea that Section 230 somehow helps create the conditions that gets us out of the mess we are in is a pipe dream. I would love someone to sketch me out a plan, based around the legal protection around aggregating user generated content provided by the current laws, that slays the beast of Facebook. > Do you trust Facebook to not start censoring links to external websites? Not anymore or less than I trust Facebook to show my posts on anyone else's feed. In a world where there is Gigabytes of content generated each day, more content than any human could possibly digest, Facebook necessarily shows you some slice of it. The fact that we don't hold them accountable for the slice they choose is frankly crazy to me. > How are content aggregators going to exist? Forums? Chat rooms? Should /unmoderated/ content aggregators, forums and chat rooms exit? This is a fundamental question which I am scratching at. It seems people are making a motte and bailey argument here. They seem to suggest content aggregation couldn't exist without Section 230. This is hyperbole. It would mean the platforms that aggregate user generated content would be forced to strictly moderate it or face legal trouble. > How is Google going to exist if it's liable for what it links to? That brings us firmly in the territory of law that I am not familiar with. I know there are cases where the question of publishing links and how that relates to content and/or copyright is grey. However, what liability I would face if I were to post a link on my own blog to someone else's content is something I have no knowledge of. > Meanwhile, all of my other options for discussion will slowly start disappearing as it becomes too costly to continue operating. I'm not sure this is necessarily true. Outside of reddit and hacker news I can't think of any other space I even bother posting anything. The majority of my meaningful communication is done 1-on-1. We're treating a specific class of communication as sacrosanct. Not even: I'm free to say what I want. But rather, I'm free to create open public spaces where anyone else can post anything they want. We're talking about a very specific kind of thing and I'm unsure if that specific thing is worth having at all.

klyrs 6y ago

Would the forums of yesteryear survive? The early 2000s saw a veritable utopia of information sharing, as people with special interests came online and formed groups to discuss and collaborate on those interests. Would the open source software community survive? My world revolves around github more than any other site; would ticket discussions be forced back to mailing lists? Would mail readers pick that slack up, and re-implement social media over email?

reggieband 6y ago
> Would the forums of yesteryear survive? I know this is questioning some fundamental assumptions of most of our moral principals, but I am literally questioning: should they survive? It seems everyone is assuming that they should. Some seem to suggest they should for abstract "free speech at all costs" philosophy. Others are assuming they have some kind of positive effect, either on personal growth or economic activity. > Would the open source software community survive? I'm not sure how Section 230 applies to code but I don't think public forums like Facebook, Twitter or Youtube are necessary for open source software to continue (any more than they were necessary for it to start, which happened long before they existed). Besides, what I'm pondering is the centralized aggregation points. People could still host blogs, they are just directly liable for the content they post (as they likely are now).
- giantrobot 6y ago
  You keep harping on Facebook et al but you're ignoring everyone pointing out that Section 230 protects everyone at all scales. Without Section 230 exceptions there's no protection for any type of user generated content. That means no user reviews of anything. No user contributed information so no more Wikipedia or OpenStreetMaps. No Wikis of any kind in fact. No hosting of public data sets for ML research. Forums would be a liability nightmare so they would go away. Not only would current/new instances of user generated content make sites liable but hosting any historical co rent as well. So to avoid liability the web would have to be scraped clean of user generated content. Facebook and other large sites would be the only ones to survive because they could afford a moderator army. Your extremely short sighted position would basically leave only large content producers. The Internet would regress to the curated Online Service model but worse because user communication would need to be disallowed over heavily moderated. You're advocating for the Internet to turn into broadcast television. It's sad that you either can't or won't accept that implication.
  - reggieband 6y ago
    Why do you suppose the only way user content can possibly be shared on the Internet is through content aggregation sites? I am suggesting this is a blindspot we've all fallen into that may have created the monsters we are now fighting to protect. > Your extremely short sighted position I am getting this a lot in this comment section so far. I mean, hey we should all be thick-skinned, right? My disagreement with your conclusions or predictions of what would happen doesn't mean I suffer from myopia and it isn't very polite to suggest otherwise. Central aggregation of user generated content isn't the only possible mechanism to do anything on the Internet. Removing the legal protections for aggregators may slow growth and make it significantly more difficult to centrally aggregate content, but that might actually be a good thing.

eli 6y ago

I promise you that there are options between "do nothing" and "remove the legal foundation crucial to the development of the participatory internet."

spiffytech 6y ago

Remember that Section 230 isn't just about the big, centralized services. It protects everybody who's ever run a phpBB forum for their little community, or allowed comments on their blog, or set up a Mastodon instance they share with others. If you host content written by someone else, Section 230 is what allows you to moderate it, and what prevents you from being legally liable for it. Proposals requiring "political neutrality" even add new burdens to be compliant with; your friend on your Mastodon ranting about "that politician" probably isn't "neutral" publishing. Facebook et al. could be big enough to wrangle the regulatory burden of existing without these protections. But many proposed 230 "reforms" could scare off anyone smaller, creating a regulatory moat that keeps Facebook at the top in perpetuity.

reggieband 6y ago
Yes, believe it or not I am questioning whether or not I should be free from liability if I host a public forum. And my conclusion is: perhaps I should be liable if I stand up a public forum. You may suggest that would prevent me from creating a user-generated-content application of massive scale without the resources to sufficiently moderate it. And again, yes - maybe that should be a requirement of me doing such a thing. It isn't like the only kind of business a person could create on the internet is one that surrounds the aggregation of user generated content. If it killed that entire class of business ... I am not sure we would lose very much of value that couldn't be replaced by individuals hosting their own content.
- spiffytech 6y ago
  > of massive scale Of even tiny, microscopic scale. Even your personal blog's comments, or the forum for your local club. And it _still_ won't stop Facebook. It'll only stop _you_. That outcome doesn't sound like the outcome you're saying you may be comfortable with. It sounds like the opposite.
  - reggieband 6y ago
    > That outcome doesn't sound like the outcome you're saying you may be comfortable with. Oh no, I'm considering exactly that. I am saying: if my tiny personal blog has a comment section I would be liable for comments posted there. If that is a burden I can't handle then I should turn off comments. At least in my experience those comment sections are a complete waste of space anyway and the trend I've noticed from the large blogs that are still around (e.g. daringfireball, kottke) is that their comment sections are long gone anyway. What I am pondering is: would this ruin the Internet? If I couldn't host a public forum if it got beyond my limited means to moderate? If I couldn't have a public comment section? It doesn't seem clear to me the Internet breaks if I am forced to own the responsibility for those things that I allow to be made public through sites I control.

originalvichy 6y ago

>Section 230 makes sites like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Youtube, Instagram and even Hacker News possible. Revoking Section 230 could expose those platforms to the possibility of liability for content posted on them. This might cause a re-shaping of the Internet in general. >Part of me seriously wonders - would that necessarily be a bad thing? I am not convinced, by any stretch of the imagination, that these social media opinion aggregation platforms are universally positive. Here's where you are wrong to think this. It doesn't protect social media giants, Hacker News and news websites. It protects literally everyone on the internet in the USA. Thanks to this law you can't be held liable if you have a blog with a comment section. Anyone can post anything there and you could be at serious risk of legal trouble if someone posted something that breaks the law on your website. Any communal website would either a) move out of the US and b) probably require some very strict controls on who can post and what. The law doesn't protect American giants, it protects everyone that uses the internet to discuss. I suggest you read this blog post on the issue, especially this part: ""If you said "Section 230 is a massive gift to big tech!" Once again, I must inform you that you are very, very wrong. There is nothing in Section 230 that applies solely to big tech. Indeed, it applies to every website on the internet and every user of those websites."" https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...

reggieband 6y ago
> It protects literally everyone on the internet in the USA. I think this is the kind of knee-jerk hyperbole I want people to really think deeply about. > Thanks to this law you can't be held liable if you have a blog with a comment section. Maybe that should not be protected. If I am unable/unwilling to moderate the comment section of a blog I host then maybe I should't have one. I do not believe a completely open free-speech comment section is a requirement of a good or successful blog. Also, there is a business opportunity for those who want comment sections to pay for moderation services. > I must inform you that you are very, very wrong. This kind of patronizing is neither useful nor conducive to mature discussion. Aggregate user-generated-content sites aren't some kind of holy thing, forums, comment sections or otherwise. I want people to consider the fact that we may all be fine without them at all. Nothing stops people from posting whatever content they want on their own site. It just discourages aggregation of other people's content.

cwhiz 6y ago

I’m with you. I think we would all be better off without forums for people to anonymously yell at each other. If Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit all disappeared tomorrow it would be an enormous win for American citizens. The path to unification and healing does not run through big tech. And yes, I understand that it would also be the end of HN. I accept that.

malwrar 6y ago

> Yet the companies it protects the most are the ones I feel are the worst. Assessing legal risk of user-generated content is a financial barrier that only the companies you feel are the worst will be able to overcome. We're discussing law in the comments here like we're all lawyers but let's face it--very few of us are up to the task of determining what is and is not illegal, and even fewer of us could actually survive if that assessment was challenged. User generated content ends up having a massive upfront legal cost, and I predict it will become extinct (both future and retroactive) for US-based sites if Section 230 is repealed... > The centralized nature of Facebook actually allows for larger scale manipulation of the narrative. ...except on sites like Facebook, who make unimaginable amounts of money and can likely afford to fund private development of automoderation software and can weather the storm of lawsuits for content that manages to evade the filter. Facebook will only become more centralized as other online communication platforms are unable to bear the costs of publishing user generated content, and their control over the narrative will increase. > Maybe that would drive people to create their own websites once again. Sure, but how are people going to find these websites if I'm effectively reliant on the tech giants to tell people about it? Do you trust Facebook to not start censoring links to external websites? If there's no Section 230, then they could easily justify censoring off-site linking by saying they can't moderate the content of uncontrolled sites. How is Google going to exist if it's liable for what it links to? How are content aggregators going to exist? Forums? Chat rooms? > Facebook just disappeared off of the Internet tomorrow - I'm not really sure I would mourn that Same, but Facebook's not going anywhere. It'll just start charging its billions of users directly and continue telling me what I can and cannot read according to the whims of people I don't know and have no influence over. Meanwhile, all of my other options for discussion will slowly start disappearing as it becomes too costly to continue operating. There are better options than allowing that future to happen.

reggieband 6y ago
> We're discussing law in the comments here like we're all lawyers Even worse, we are discussing the future social effects of changes to law as if we were psychics. Not even lawyers or the best judges could claim to do that correctly. The default position seems to be "revoking Section 230 will ruin the Internet". I'm honestly trying to see how and I just don't see it. It would change the Internet and it would make certain classes of business more difficult. > Facebook will only become more centralized as other online communication platforms are unable to bear the costs of publishing user generated content I don't see a substantial change in Facebook's position either way. Is everyone still waiting for Mastodon to usurp it? Or maybe we dream of some young, ethical startup to win the hearts and minds of the globe and show us all how to be benevolent in this space? The idea that Section 230 somehow helps create the conditions that gets us out of the mess we are in is a pipe dream. I would love someone to sketch me out a plan, based around the legal protection around aggregating user generated content provided by the current laws, that slays the beast of Facebook. > Do you trust Facebook to not start censoring links to external websites? Not anymore or less than I trust Facebook to show my posts on anyone else's feed. In a world where there is Gigabytes of content generated each day, more content than any human could possibly digest, Facebook necessarily shows you some slice of it. The fact that we don't hold them accountable for the slice they choose is frankly crazy to me. > How are content aggregators going to exist? Forums? Chat rooms? Should /unmoderated/ content aggregators, forums and chat rooms exit? This is a fundamental question which I am scratching at. It seems people are making a motte and bailey argument here. They seem to suggest content aggregation couldn't exist without Section 230. This is hyperbole. It would mean the platforms that aggregate user generated content would be forced to strictly moderate it or face legal trouble. > How is Google going to exist if it's liable for what it links to? That brings us firmly in the territory of law that I am not familiar with. I know there are cases where the question of publishing links and how that relates to content and/or copyright is grey. However, what liability I would face if I were to post a link on my own blog to someone else's content is something I have no knowledge of. > Meanwhile, all of my other options for discussion will slowly start disappearing as it becomes too costly to continue operating. I'm not sure this is necessarily true. Outside of reddit and hacker news I can't think of any other space I even bother posting anything. The majority of my meaningful communication is done 1-on-1. We're treating a specific class of communication as sacrosanct. Not even: I'm free to say what I want. But rather, I'm free to create open public spaces where anyone else can post anything they want. We're talking about a very specific kind of thing and I'm unsure if that specific thing is worth having at all.