3 ms·

> How would moderation even work for audio/video conferences? This is already an issue on platforms like Twitch. All Twitch streamers are required by the Twitc

> How would moderation even work for audio/video conferences? This is already an issue on platforms like Twitch. All Twitch streamers are required by the Twitch ToS to moderate their chats and the streamers face bans if they fail to do so. Everyone keeps talking about "breaking" the Internet but let's consider what would actually change. Let's say that I am unable to moderate my chat because it is overrun with malicious actors. What are my options? I can completely turn off chat for one. I could restrict chat to a manageable vetted subset of chatters that I am comfortable allowing to post with minimal moderation. In fact, as a streamer I cannot possibly read hundreds or thousands of messages per second. At that point the very idea there is "real time communication" going on is a myth anyway. Every streamer has a way of limiting this deluge of input and moderation is how they are handling it. > Loosing most, one to many, real time communication would be throwing out a considerable amount of value. This is where I feel everyone here is taking things too far. You don't lose communication - you become responsible for the communication you allow to be made pubic.

davorak 6y ago
> This is already an issue on platforms like Twitch. All Twitch streamers are required by the Twitch ToS to moderate their chats and the streamers face bans if they fail to do so. Currently twitch is not held legally responsible if the streamers fail to follow ToS due to Section 230. If Section 230 was dropped however asking the streamers to moderate would not protect them from legal consequences. I do not see how twitch's current rules would provide them legal protection or provide a solution for moderation of one to many realtime communication if Section 230 was dropped. Maybe you have some assumptions about how new laws would be put in place post Section 230 that make this work? > This is where I feel everyone here is taking things too far. You don't lose communication - you become responsible for the communication you allow to be made pubic. It increases the barrier to entry so many, if not most, forms of one to many real time communication would have to be discontinued due to lack of the ability to moderate in real time. Hence they would be lost along with the value they generate.
- reggieband 6y ago
  > Maybe you have some assumptions about how new laws would be put in place post Section 230 that make this work? I don't have to have assumptions, I know of real life examples. Not long ago I worked for a company that had a 24 hour live news broadcast. How do you think they handle this? One specific example I can recall is closed captioning. These are federally required on all TV broadcast channels, including live. The company had a contract for a third party to manually transcribe the broadcast in real time. One initiative we wanted to explore was automating this process using speech recognition software. This was difficult because it turns out that incorrectly transcribed closed captions can lead to lawsuits. So the company that was contracted to handle the closed captions also provided insurance/indemnification against their service causing any lawsuits. No AI speech recognition solutions that were available also included this insurance so it was deemed too risky to switch. One of the underlying assumptions in all of this Section 230 talk is "it's too hard to moderate the deluge of user generated content" .... so why even bother trying I guess? Why is that the underlying assumption? Why isn't the assumption: You can publish as much user generated content as you are capable of adequately moderating? The idea that the current free-for-all is some inherent "right" is perplexing to me. > so many, if not most, forms of one to many real time communication would have to be discontinued due to lack of the ability to moderate in real time. Hence they would be lost along with the value they generate. Again, that doesn't seem like the necessary conclusion. It prevents centralized platforms from publishing massive deluges of unvetted content. They are not in a position to moderate the billions of videos, chat posts, images uploaded each day. So, maybe instead of leaving the free pass we've given them open we question: is it reasonable for single entities to be the sole publisher of billions of unmoderated pieces of content? That doesn't mean all content everywhere goes away. It creates limits on what sole entities can accomplish.
  - davorak 6y ago
    > I don't have to have assumptions, I know of real life examples. Not long ago I worked for a company that had a 24 hour live news broadcast. How do you think they handle this? You example does not address my original question in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24807064 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24807064 "How would moderation even work for audio/video conferences?" "Do you have solutions for issues like that?" In your example there must be a delay in broadcasting, for the realtime captioning to happen in. That sort of delay precludes a real time back and forth conversation that is expected from audio/video conferencing. Secondly I was also asking for a solution that would allow small time actors, like in my example of the conference I attended, to continue to be able to host such conferences with out undue liability or massive investment. > One of the underlying assumptions in all of this Section 230 talk is "it's too hard to moderate the deluge of user generated content" .... so why even bother trying I guess? I have not seen that be the main thrust of any argument. To my knowledge Section 230 was in part made to make it easier for more moderation to take place since before some had assumed any level of moderation would induce legal liability, both criminal and finical, for any content that made it past moderation. > Again, that doesn't seem like the necessary conclusion. It prevents centralized platforms from publishing massive deluges of unvetted content. As noted above your example above does not apply to my original question an example of a small time actor using audio/video conferencing so I remain unconvinced.

davorak 6y ago

> This is already an issue on platforms like Twitch. All Twitch streamers are required by the Twitch ToS to moderate their chats and the streamers face bans if they fail to do so. Currently twitch is not held legally responsible if the streamers fail to follow ToS due to Section 230. If Section 230 was dropped however asking the streamers to moderate would not protect them from legal consequences. I do not see how twitch's current rules would provide them legal protection or provide a solution for moderation of one to many realtime communication if Section 230 was dropped. Maybe you have some assumptions about how new laws would be put in place post Section 230 that make this work? > This is where I feel everyone here is taking things too far. You don't lose communication - you become responsible for the communication you allow to be made pubic. It increases the barrier to entry so many, if not most, forms of one to many real time communication would have to be discontinued due to lack of the ability to moderate in real time. Hence they would be lost along with the value they generate.

reggieband 6y ago
> Maybe you have some assumptions about how new laws would be put in place post Section 230 that make this work? I don't have to have assumptions, I know of real life examples. Not long ago I worked for a company that had a 24 hour live news broadcast. How do you think they handle this? One specific example I can recall is closed captioning. These are federally required on all TV broadcast channels, including live. The company had a contract for a third party to manually transcribe the broadcast in real time. One initiative we wanted to explore was automating this process using speech recognition software. This was difficult because it turns out that incorrectly transcribed closed captions can lead to lawsuits. So the company that was contracted to handle the closed captions also provided insurance/indemnification against their service causing any lawsuits. No AI speech recognition solutions that were available also included this insurance so it was deemed too risky to switch. One of the underlying assumptions in all of this Section 230 talk is "it's too hard to moderate the deluge of user generated content" .... so why even bother trying I guess? Why is that the underlying assumption? Why isn't the assumption: You can publish as much user generated content as you are capable of adequately moderating? The idea that the current free-for-all is some inherent "right" is perplexing to me. > so many, if not most, forms of one to many real time communication would have to be discontinued due to lack of the ability to moderate in real time. Hence they would be lost along with the value they generate. Again, that doesn't seem like the necessary conclusion. It prevents centralized platforms from publishing massive deluges of unvetted content. They are not in a position to moderate the billions of videos, chat posts, images uploaded each day. So, maybe instead of leaving the free pass we've given them open we question: is it reasonable for single entities to be the sole publisher of billions of unmoderated pieces of content? That doesn't mean all content everywhere goes away. It creates limits on what sole entities can accomplish.
- davorak 6y ago
  > I don't have to have assumptions, I know of real life examples. Not long ago I worked for a company that had a 24 hour live news broadcast. How do you think they handle this? You example does not address my original question in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24807064 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24807064 "How would moderation even work for audio/video conferences?" "Do you have solutions for issues like that?" In your example there must be a delay in broadcasting, for the realtime captioning to happen in. That sort of delay precludes a real time back and forth conversation that is expected from audio/video conferencing. Secondly I was also asking for a solution that would allow small time actors, like in my example of the conference I attended, to continue to be able to host such conferences with out undue liability or massive investment. > One of the underlying assumptions in all of this Section 230 talk is "it's too hard to moderate the deluge of user generated content" .... so why even bother trying I guess? I have not seen that be the main thrust of any argument. To my knowledge Section 230 was in part made to make it easier for more moderation to take place since before some had assumed any level of moderation would induce legal liability, both criminal and finical, for any content that made it past moderation. > Again, that doesn't seem like the necessary conclusion. It prevents centralized platforms from publishing massive deluges of unvetted content. As noted above your example above does not apply to my original question an example of a small time actor using audio/video conferencing so I remain unconvinced.