4 ms·

> 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 re

> 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.
- reggieband 6y ago
  > You example does not address my original question in We'll have to agree to disagree then. For example, I am taking an online course right now. There is a chat room where people post questions and there is a moderator that elects individuals to speak. There is a private forum where people can post questions. I absolutely expect them to moderate that content to avoid any slanderous statements. What happens now if someone call into a radio station live call-in program and starts spouting nonsense? Same thing that would happen on the Internet. Let's sketch it out. I don't have money/time to do any moderation at all (or pre-vetting of on air guests) -- Well then I better not do it at all or I better be responsible for the consequences if a nut job gets on. I cut him off ASAP and do my best and what happens? Does a swat team descend and smash down my door? No, maybe I get a cease and desist and nothing more happens, maybe I get filed against in court, maybe I have to defend myself. Maybe I pay for liability insurance (as I mentioned happens in many other similar circumstances). Maybe I am legally compelled to remove from my servers any recorded content related to the incident. Maybe I have to pay damages for the time it was up. This idea that private real-time conferences like online classes will be impossible in such a circumstance is the hyperbole I am starting to detest. Would there be changes: hopefully yes. And my belief is theses changes would positively effect all online discourse.
  - davorak 6y ago
    Neither example seem to fully apply to my example, for example you did not layout how the online class is viable post Section 230 and the second example does seems to apply to small time actors like the small, volunteer(clarification), conference in my example. If you want to focus on one and elaborate I am willing to follow up. > This idea that private real-time conferences like online classes will be impossible in such a circumstance is the hyperbole I have not used the word impossible or implied it. I have said the change would throw out "a considerable amount of value" and I have talked about value generating venues having to shut down. I do not think you are understanding what I am saying pull 'impossible' from what I have said.
    - reggieband 6y ago

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.

reggieband 6y ago
> You example does not address my original question in We'll have to agree to disagree then. For example, I am taking an online course right now. There is a chat room where people post questions and there is a moderator that elects individuals to speak. There is a private forum where people can post questions. I absolutely expect them to moderate that content to avoid any slanderous statements. What happens now if someone call into a radio station live call-in program and starts spouting nonsense? Same thing that would happen on the Internet. Let's sketch it out. I don't have money/time to do any moderation at all (or pre-vetting of on air guests) -- Well then I better not do it at all or I better be responsible for the consequences if a nut job gets on. I cut him off ASAP and do my best and what happens? Does a swat team descend and smash down my door? No, maybe I get a cease and desist and nothing more happens, maybe I get filed against in court, maybe I have to defend myself. Maybe I pay for liability insurance (as I mentioned happens in many other similar circumstances). Maybe I am legally compelled to remove from my servers any recorded content related to the incident. Maybe I have to pay damages for the time it was up. This idea that private real-time conferences like online classes will be impossible in such a circumstance is the hyperbole I am starting to detest. Would there be changes: hopefully yes. And my belief is theses changes would positively effect all online discourse.
- davorak 6y ago
  Neither example seem to fully apply to my example, for example you did not layout how the online class is viable post Section 230 and the second example does seems to apply to small time actors like the small, volunteer(clarification), conference in my example. If you want to focus on one and elaborate I am willing to follow up. > This idea that private real-time conferences like online classes will be impossible in such a circumstance is the hyperbole I have not used the word impossible or implied it. I have said the change would throw out "a considerable amount of value" and I have talked about value generating venues having to shut down. I do not think you are understanding what I am saying pull 'impossible' from what I have said.
  - reggieband 6y ago