5 ms·

> Would the forums of yesteryear survive? I know this is questioning some fundamental assumptions of most of our moral principals, but I am literally questioni

> 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.
  - malwrar 6y ago
    > Why do you suppose the only way user content can possibly be shared on the Internet is through content aggregation sites? Do you have an alternative that could survive if user-generated content is made legally risky to host and is subject to the whims of moderators on the few sites/publishers that can afford to bear those risks?
  - giantrobot 6y ago
    I'm sorry but you are suffering from serious myopia by getting hung up on big sites like Facebook or YouTube. Removing protections for sites hosting content will have a deleterious effect on the entire Internet. As I said and you conveniently ignore, user generated content would have to be scrubbed from the Internet except from the big players like Facebook that can afford an army of moderators. So first order problem is big sites like Facebook would be the only venues of user generated content. It also creates a slippery slope for ISPs/hosting companies. It could easily be interpreted that an ISP or hosting company is hosting user generated content, they literally are, so they're liable for that content. They would not carry any content that might make them liable for anything so they'll either shut down or moderate their services such individuals have no means to post their own content. ISPs already restrict or block hosting content, they would only get more draconian if they faved legal liability for someone hosting a site. You can't suggest a course of action that would consolidate power in big sites like Facebook and then opine about people posting content outside of those sites. There would no longer be an "outside" of Facebook because no small player could ever afford the moderation or insurance against liability. You might dislike Facebook or YouTube and they might be filled with dreck. They might need their own types of regulation but dooming all user generated content because Facebook's management are assholes is not a fix. Instead of getting offended when people point out your myopia maybe take a step back and apply some critical thought to your suggestions.
    - reggieband 6y ago
      > As I said and you conveniently ignore, user generated content would have to be scrubbed from the Internet except from the big players like Facebook I've repeated it ad nauseam but I'll repeat it again - this is just hyperbole. In what capacity do the majority of Internet users aggregate the content of others? I'm thinking about my own use of the Internet. In what capacity do I own domains or applications where I personally publish the content generated by others? Let's consider a few possible cases (which do not apply to me). I have a blog with a comment section. Someone posts some comment that leaves me open to legal liability. I have a few options including turning off comments on my blog, moderating all comments on my blog before they go live, paying a third party to handle moderation (and indemnify/insure me against legal liability). Second, I am passionate about some hobby and wish to create a public forum on a domain I host that allows for the discussion. Malicious participants start to show up that start to post content on this unmoderated forum that open me up to legal liability. Again, I have to deal with this now in some capacity. Third, I am an entrepreneur with my sights on a startup. This startup is like an Instagram, Pinterest, Reddit, Tumbler/Blogger, Medium, Quora, Yahoo Answers, Stack Overflow etc. I am concerned that malicious actors will use my new venture to publish malicious content. Right now, I don't care I just build it without any worry. Without Section 230 I have to seriously think about how I ensure content is moderated. I'm just not seeing the Internet break in any of these scenarios. I'm not seeing the Internet being scrubbed of content. In fact, as far as I can tell all of the above happens already to some degree. Do you expect defamatory content on stack overflow? Or do you expect it to be removed?
klyrs 6y ago
> I am literally questioning: should they survive? I say yes. Those forums of yesteryear were really good examples of where the internet can shine. The evolution of spammers made self-hosting prohibitively difficult, and the big fish grew fast and swallowed the market. It's a shame, and that's a reason that I'm generally in favor of breaking up the biggest players (though, I haven't seen a specific proposal that I'm in favor of) > > 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... You seemed to miss the thrust of my comment about github. Github isn't just a repository of code, it's also a public forum! The ability to file and discuss bugs out in the open is a feature that would be sorely missed -- I've gotten two bug reports this week from previously-unknown users. That wasn't common back in the mailing list days, and I'm really happy that the bar to bug reporting is lower.
- reggieband 6y ago
  Well, to be fair you have an even stronger argument against me in that code is really just text. I mean, I can create `libellous_rant.txt` and push it into a public Github repo. Since any file on a pubic github repo is viewable (even without setting it up as a site or whatever feature they have) that feels like they could be viewed as publishing that content. So Github couldn't even really force moderation of issues, they would have to moderate every single file in every single repo. But to address the specific concern you brought up, removing Section 230 wouldn't prevent someone submitting bugs/issues. It would just force the moderation of those posts before they were made publicly viewable. For small projects that receive 2 or 3 bug reports a week I doubt that would be the massive issue everyone here is wringing their hands over. It becomes a problem with scale - like 1000+ issues per day on a project ran by a single developer. But to be fair to my position - could such a developer even deal with that volume of issues even if the default behaviour was to make all posts public? I grant that moderation slows discussion. For example, if you were asleep and someone posted an issue then before you even had a chance to moderate some other non-admin user might answer the question. Maybe we lose that. More likely we find a way to work around it.
  - cbelton 6y ago

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.
- malwrar 6y ago
  > Why do you suppose the only way user content can possibly be shared on the Internet is through content aggregation sites? Do you have an alternative that could survive if user-generated content is made legally risky to host and is subject to the whims of moderators on the few sites/publishers that can afford to bear those risks?
- giantrobot 6y ago
  I'm sorry but you are suffering from serious myopia by getting hung up on big sites like Facebook or YouTube. Removing protections for sites hosting content will have a deleterious effect on the entire Internet. As I said and you conveniently ignore, user generated content would have to be scrubbed from the Internet except from the big players like Facebook that can afford an army of moderators. So first order problem is big sites like Facebook would be the only venues of user generated content. It also creates a slippery slope for ISPs/hosting companies. It could easily be interpreted that an ISP or hosting company is hosting user generated content, they literally are, so they're liable for that content. They would not carry any content that might make them liable for anything so they'll either shut down or moderate their services such individuals have no means to post their own content. ISPs already restrict or block hosting content, they would only get more draconian if they faved legal liability for someone hosting a site. You can't suggest a course of action that would consolidate power in big sites like Facebook and then opine about people posting content outside of those sites. There would no longer be an "outside" of Facebook because no small player could ever afford the moderation or insurance against liability. You might dislike Facebook or YouTube and they might be filled with dreck. They might need their own types of regulation but dooming all user generated content because Facebook's management are assholes is not a fix. Instead of getting offended when people point out your myopia maybe take a step back and apply some critical thought to your suggestions.
  - reggieband 6y ago
    > As I said and you conveniently ignore, user generated content would have to be scrubbed from the Internet except from the big players like Facebook I've repeated it ad nauseam but I'll repeat it again - this is just hyperbole. In what capacity do the majority of Internet users aggregate the content of others? I'm thinking about my own use of the Internet. In what capacity do I own domains or applications where I personally publish the content generated by others? Let's consider a few possible cases (which do not apply to me). I have a blog with a comment section. Someone posts some comment that leaves me open to legal liability. I have a few options including turning off comments on my blog, moderating all comments on my blog before they go live, paying a third party to handle moderation (and indemnify/insure me against legal liability). Second, I am passionate about some hobby and wish to create a public forum on a domain I host that allows for the discussion. Malicious participants start to show up that start to post content on this unmoderated forum that open me up to legal liability. Again, I have to deal with this now in some capacity. Third, I am an entrepreneur with my sights on a startup. This startup is like an Instagram, Pinterest, Reddit, Tumbler/Blogger, Medium, Quora, Yahoo Answers, Stack Overflow etc. I am concerned that malicious actors will use my new venture to publish malicious content. Right now, I don't care I just build it without any worry. Without Section 230 I have to seriously think about how I ensure content is moderated. I'm just not seeing the Internet break in any of these scenarios. I'm not seeing the Internet being scrubbed of content. In fact, as far as I can tell all of the above happens already to some degree. Do you expect defamatory content on stack overflow? Or do you expect it to be removed?

klyrs 6y ago

> I am literally questioning: should they survive? I say yes. Those forums of yesteryear were really good examples of where the internet can shine. The evolution of spammers made self-hosting prohibitively difficult, and the big fish grew fast and swallowed the market. It's a shame, and that's a reason that I'm generally in favor of breaking up the biggest players (though, I haven't seen a specific proposal that I'm in favor of) > > 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... You seemed to miss the thrust of my comment about github. Github isn't just a repository of code, it's also a public forum! The ability to file and discuss bugs out in the open is a feature that would be sorely missed -- I've gotten two bug reports this week from previously-unknown users. That wasn't common back in the mailing list days, and I'm really happy that the bar to bug reporting is lower.

reggieband 6y ago
Well, to be fair you have an even stronger argument against me in that code is really just text. I mean, I can create `libellous_rant.txt` and push it into a public Github repo. Since any file on a pubic github repo is viewable (even without setting it up as a site or whatever feature they have) that feels like they could be viewed as publishing that content. So Github couldn't even really force moderation of issues, they would have to moderate every single file in every single repo. But to address the specific concern you brought up, removing Section 230 wouldn't prevent someone submitting bugs/issues. It would just force the moderation of those posts before they were made publicly viewable. For small projects that receive 2 or 3 bug reports a week I doubt that would be the massive issue everyone here is wringing their hands over. It becomes a problem with scale - like 1000+ issues per day on a project ran by a single developer. But to be fair to my position - could such a developer even deal with that volume of issues even if the default behaviour was to make all posts public? I grant that moderation slows discussion. For example, if you were asleep and someone posted an issue then before you even had a chance to moderate some other non-admin user might answer the question. Maybe we lose that. More likely we find a way to work around it.
- cbelton 6y ago