3 ms·

Personally* I have doubts[1] about this reasoning, in that it doesn't cover how this would not apply to the New York Times. I can agree with your interpretatio

by afiori 6y ago

Personally* I have doubts[1] about this reasoning, in that it doesn't cover how this would not apply to the New York Times. I can agree with your interpretation that where the protection of section 230 applies companies would be allowed to remove basically whatever they want. But there need to be a criterion distinguishing why Twitter can claim this immunity while newspapers cannot. The rights granted need to have some kind of obligation. From what I understand the people that are trying to attack this immunity have mostly given up with the argument "Twitter monopolized a space for discussions so it should be held to constitutional standards like telephone companies" or "social media platforms are clearly acting as publishers of their content" and are rather trying to push "social media companies falsely promised open forums to users and content creators only to hit them with draconian rules once a monopoly was established" (had facebook (or youtube) had the same ToS since its inception it would have never become a monopoly). With this last argument the entire question of section 230 is sidestepped. As far as I understand it will not actually accomplish anything soon; a lawsuit on these premises was successful against Patreon, but those were very special circumstances. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/ * I am even more remote from the US than a Canadian lawyer, but I do not see my role as telling the courts what they should do, but rather as someone that is trying to understand what is happening and trying to develop informed opinions.

michaelmrose 6y ago
You say you doubt my reasoning but substitute none of your own save for a stale youtube link to the diatribe of a non entity and a link introduced but then neither explained nor contexualized. I honestly don't know entirely what it is trying to express. "Proving Too Much" seems to be a complete non sequitur I have no idea what you fallacy you are suggesting is expressed by the prior or any other post on this subject. >But there need to be a criterion distinguishing why Twitter can claim this immunity while newspapers cannot. The rights granted need to have some kind of obligation. You can institute new obligations as soon as you buy your own congress critter and get them to write new laws. If you believe such obligations are already expressed in law kindly cite the statute and section. The distinction between the print copy published by the New York Times and say reddit/twitter/facebook is literally that this is the distinction the law makes. It doesn't have to make sense to you to be the law of the land. Particularly the short comprehensible section already the primary topic of discussion. If you want to dig into why it seems relatively obvious. The finite first party content is dear and expensive and the act of curation is already inherently an expectation. Asking a publication to take legal responsibility for what they publish is a tolerable and reasonable burden. Reddit/Twitter/Facebook solicit users to produce a veritable ocean of content for which they offer users a chance to communicate to their fellows and a small amount of server time which per unit is paid for by a slightly larger income from ads provided with that content. Legal responsibility for content shared between you and I would be a herculean task, impractical, intractable, and expensive that would leave them with little choice but to cease operations. Indeed few people actually want this what they want is 230 to be used like a club to keep people like twitter from shaping the conversation despite owning the property on which you expect discussion to take place and no law providing such a right to someone else's megaphone. If you don't like it start your own website.
- afiori 6y ago
  What I was trying to say is that there is a continuum between the New York Times kind of editorial control and Reddit/Twitter/Facebook moderation of content. I am not saying that section 230 should not apply, I am saying that, to my knowledge, under current laws if a social media company decide to apply excessive editorial control (let's say twitter decides to only allow factually true tweets) they would lose the protections granted by section 230. > The rights granted need to have some kind of obligation. By "need" I meant that I believe these obligations already exist in laws. > Proving too much By proving too much I meant to say that since section 230 does not apply to newspapers the law must make a difference between them. To my understanding this difference is editorial control. Finally I am not trying to have a debate over this, I am only trying to understand better the issue; I clearly have a side/bias, and I am trying to learn more about the many other facets of the issue.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    >, I am saying that, to my knowledge, under current laws if a social media company decide to apply excessive editorial control (let's say twitter decides to only allow factually true tweets) they would lose the protections granted by section 230. It's a short law read it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 There is no clause that specifies that a company even can in a blanket fashion "lose protection" in such a fashion. First relevant section. (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. This is completely without qualification. Second relevant section (2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1] It says you can't be held liable for blocking something in "good faith" Nowhere on earth does it suggest that any action will cause you as an actor can lose protection under this act. It just says that no action taken in good faith can result in you being held liable for that particular act. This means that in order for a party to sue they would have to prove both that they were blocked in bad faith AND completely aside from this title they possessed a legitimate cause to sue. To be completely clear someone could post on reddit the libelous allegation that you ate babies causing you to lose your job at the day care a clearly obvious cause of action and then the ceo of reddit could personally block your profile to keep you from running against him for mayor of your little town. A judge could agree that your content was blocked in bad faith and you STILL wouldn't be able to sue reddit for the baby story. If you don't like that reddit or facebook or twitter blocked your story your problem becomes finding a legal right to exercise your legitimate freedom of speech VIA their platform. The DMCA has existed for 24 years longer than some readers here have been out of diapers and I can no platform has been censured yet for removing deplorables in a nation full of both deplorables and lawyers. It seems likely none ever will without a new law not a new interpretation.

by afiori 6y ago

michaelmrose 6y ago

You say you doubt my reasoning but substitute none of your own save for a stale youtube link to the diatribe of a non entity and a link introduced but then neither explained nor contexualized. I honestly don't know entirely what it is trying to express. "Proving Too Much" seems to be a complete non sequitur I have no idea what you fallacy you are suggesting is expressed by the prior or any other post on this subject. >But there need to be a criterion distinguishing why Twitter can claim this immunity while newspapers cannot. The rights granted need to have some kind of obligation. You can institute new obligations as soon as you buy your own congress critter and get them to write new laws. If you believe such obligations are already expressed in law kindly cite the statute and section. The distinction between the print copy published by the New York Times and say reddit/twitter/facebook is literally that this is the distinction the law makes. It doesn't have to make sense to you to be the law of the land. Particularly the short comprehensible section already the primary topic of discussion. If you want to dig into why it seems relatively obvious. The finite first party content is dear and expensive and the act of curation is already inherently an expectation. Asking a publication to take legal responsibility for what they publish is a tolerable and reasonable burden. Reddit/Twitter/Facebook solicit users to produce a veritable ocean of content for which they offer users a chance to communicate to their fellows and a small amount of server time which per unit is paid for by a slightly larger income from ads provided with that content. Legal responsibility for content shared between you and I would be a herculean task, impractical, intractable, and expensive that would leave them with little choice but to cease operations. Indeed few people actually want this what they want is 230 to be used like a club to keep people like twitter from shaping the conversation despite owning the property on which you expect discussion to take place and no law providing such a right to someone else's megaphone. If you don't like it start your own website.

afiori 6y ago
What I was trying to say is that there is a continuum between the New York Times kind of editorial control and Reddit/Twitter/Facebook moderation of content. I am not saying that section 230 should not apply, I am saying that, to my knowledge, under current laws if a social media company decide to apply excessive editorial control (let's say twitter decides to only allow factually true tweets) they would lose the protections granted by section 230. > The rights granted need to have some kind of obligation. By "need" I meant that I believe these obligations already exist in laws. > Proving too much By proving too much I meant to say that since section 230 does not apply to newspapers the law must make a difference between them. To my understanding this difference is editorial control. Finally I am not trying to have a debate over this, I am only trying to understand better the issue; I clearly have a side/bias, and I am trying to learn more about the many other facets of the issue.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  >, I am saying that, to my knowledge, under current laws if a social media company decide to apply excessive editorial control (let's say twitter decides to only allow factually true tweets) they would lose the protections granted by section 230. It's a short law read it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 There is no clause that specifies that a company even can in a blanket fashion "lose protection" in such a fashion. First relevant section. (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. This is completely without qualification. Second relevant section (2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1] It says you can't be held liable for blocking something in "good faith" Nowhere on earth does it suggest that any action will cause you as an actor can lose protection under this act. It just says that no action taken in good faith can result in you being held liable for that particular act. This means that in order for a party to sue they would have to prove both that they were blocked in bad faith AND completely aside from this title they possessed a legitimate cause to sue. To be completely clear someone could post on reddit the libelous allegation that you ate babies causing you to lose your job at the day care a clearly obvious cause of action and then the ceo of reddit could personally block your profile to keep you from running against him for mayor of your little town. A judge could agree that your content was blocked in bad faith and you STILL wouldn't be able to sue reddit for the baby story. If you don't like that reddit or facebook or twitter blocked your story your problem becomes finding a legal right to exercise your legitimate freedom of speech VIA their platform. The DMCA has existed for 24 years longer than some readers here have been out of diapers and I can no platform has been censured yet for removing deplorables in a nation full of both deplorables and lawyers. It seems likely none ever will without a new law not a new interpretation.