3 ms·

What is it that you think Section 230 does that “allows platforms to be judge, jury, and executioner”? What harm, specifically, do you think the Section 230 lia

What is it that you think Section 230 does that “allows platforms to be judge, jury, and executioner”? What harm, specifically, do you think the Section 230 liability shield is causing? What change, specifically, do you think should be made to cure that harm? How would your proposed change not cause sites with UGC to either shut down entirely (thereby eliminating the ability to speak out at all), require pre-approval for all UGC (thereby increasing the amount of censorship), or be overrun by spammers and trolls (thereby making the site useless)? Don’t just think about Twitter and Facebook. Think about Hacker News, or a subreddit you like, or a small community forum that you visit, or the comments section of your favourite tech news site. A change to Section 230 affects everybody.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
This whole "sites with UGC will have to shut down entirely rather than face liability for their actions" nonsense is tiring. Facebook and Google are not going to decide to simply shutdown their eleventy billion dollar businesses because they will need to occasionally employ lawyers to defend themselves from lawsuits. We need to actually and actively stop pretending this talking point is a thing. Sure, they can threaten to leave Australia for regulating them (as they have recently done), but unless you think some of the most valuable companies on the planet are going to literally pack up and leave the US because they'll be subject to the law (like every other non-tech-company already is!), I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. Section 230 is a blanket immunity that allows Google, Facebook, and Twitter to avoid any sort of liability of any kinda for automated harms to society. That's it. Sure, Section 230 technically applies to smaller websites, but it is effectively immaterial: Smaller websites and communities have reasonable, defensible human moderation activities. The United States court system is not some madhouse that you can exploit with bad code: It's built on firm pillars like intent and reasonableness. We have judges that rule on cases based on the facts of the specific issue in question, who are elected and accountable to the people. Which is why, no, without 230, every website owner isn't suddenly going to jail because someone posted fraud. The intent isn't there. Intent is a crucial pillar of the law. Meanwhile, Google and Facebook have harmful intent. Their intent is to raise engagement as much as possible, even if it radicalizes users, and causes actual harm to lives and liberty. Because at the end of the day, their moderation decisions are solely determined by profit. If it's not profitable to have adult content on the site because advertisers don't like it, adult content is banned. If it's very profitable to take political ads that claim falsehoods, you bet they're going to, because it makes them money. And if scammers and fraudsters pay top dollar for ad space, you know they'll be favored customers. That is where Section 230 really applies: When bad people doing bad things can use it to hide behind any consideration of what they are doing. Section 230 doesn't defend tech companies, it dismisses all complaints against them, regardless of their merit. Sure, it's going to cost Google and Facebook more to reckon with what they've done without immunity. So they really really want to keep that immunity. And they'll pay off every lobbyist, think tank, and so-called expert to tell you Section 230 is crucial to the Internet. But when it's gone, they will suck it up and stay in business, because at the end of the day, they like money, and they'd still rather be in business even if it means they make a little less.
- csnover 6y ago
  First, I want to stress that I agree wholeheartedly that the social networking sites’ focus on engagement is clearly harmful to society, and the dark patterns they use to drive engagement are morally repugnant. I want that to stop as much as anybody. I’m not seeing an answer in your reply to my questions of what change to Section 230 you think would do something about that, though. My understanding of S230 is that it says (1) information services are considered distributors rather than publishers when it comes to liability, and (2) if they exercise limited editorial control in good faith by moderating objectionable content they are still considered distributors rather than publishers for the sake of liability. (Also, there are already various exceptions to the liability shield, so it is not a blanket immunity.) While you may be tired of the argument that sites will shut down, it is one legitimate potential outcome of a change to S230, and one we’ve already seen in action: SESTA-FOSTA caused Craigslist to close their personals sections even though they had no intent to facilitate sex trafficking and it would have been reasonable for them to claim that the overwhelming majority of posts were not illegal. They simply couldn’t accept the liability risk. Furthermore, as someone who has hosted an online forum about retrocomputing since 2002, losing the liability protections of S230 in the way Ted Cruz seems to want it (by eliminating the liability shield for sites which moderate content) would absolutely push me to shutter the whole site. So, please don’t act like this isn’t a real threat; there’s both precedent and I’m telling you what it would cause me to do as a hobbyist site operator. It doesn’t matter if I could eventually win a court case—I am unable and unwilling to accept liability for what other users decide to say. Since—again, as far as I know—it is not illegal for social networking sites to use algorithms or dark patterns to drive engagement, and since S230 is a shield only against liability for the content of posts made by users even in the presence of limited good faith moderation of the content, I ask once again the same questions: what is it that you think Section 230 does that “allows platforms to be judge, jury, and executioner”? (It doesn’t allow the platforms to modify UGC in a way which changes its meaning, for example.) What harm, specifically, do you think the Section 230 liability shield is causing? (It doesn’t shield providers against crimes that don’t exist, or crimes that they commit themselves.) What change, specifically, do you think should be made to cure that harm? How would your proposed change not cause sites with UGC to either shut down entirely (thereby eliminating the ability to speak out at all), require pre-approval for all UGC (thereby increasing the amount of censorship), or be overrun by spammers and trolls (thereby making the site useless)? Looking forward to any answers to my questions above. (EDIT: Clarity and tone.)

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

This whole "sites with UGC will have to shut down entirely rather than face liability for their actions" nonsense is tiring. Facebook and Google are not going to decide to simply shutdown their eleventy billion dollar businesses because they will need to occasionally employ lawyers to defend themselves from lawsuits. We need to actually and actively stop pretending this talking point is a thing. Sure, they can threaten to leave Australia for regulating them (as they have recently done), but unless you think some of the most valuable companies on the planet are going to literally pack up and leave the US because they'll be subject to the law (like every other non-tech-company already is!), I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. Section 230 is a blanket immunity that allows Google, Facebook, and Twitter to avoid any sort of liability of any kinda for automated harms to society. That's it. Sure, Section 230 technically applies to smaller websites, but it is effectively immaterial: Smaller websites and communities have reasonable, defensible human moderation activities. The United States court system is not some madhouse that you can exploit with bad code: It's built on firm pillars like intent and reasonableness. We have judges that rule on cases based on the facts of the specific issue in question, who are elected and accountable to the people. Which is why, no, without 230, every website owner isn't suddenly going to jail because someone posted fraud. The intent isn't there. Intent is a crucial pillar of the law. Meanwhile, Google and Facebook have harmful intent. Their intent is to raise engagement as much as possible, even if it radicalizes users, and causes actual harm to lives and liberty. Because at the end of the day, their moderation decisions are solely determined by profit. If it's not profitable to have adult content on the site because advertisers don't like it, adult content is banned. If it's very profitable to take political ads that claim falsehoods, you bet they're going to, because it makes them money. And if scammers and fraudsters pay top dollar for ad space, you know they'll be favored customers. That is where Section 230 really applies: When bad people doing bad things can use it to hide behind any consideration of what they are doing. Section 230 doesn't defend tech companies, it dismisses all complaints against them, regardless of their merit. Sure, it's going to cost Google and Facebook more to reckon with what they've done without immunity. So they really really want to keep that immunity. And they'll pay off every lobbyist, think tank, and so-called expert to tell you Section 230 is crucial to the Internet. But when it's gone, they will suck it up and stay in business, because at the end of the day, they like money, and they'd still rather be in business even if it means they make a little less.

csnover 6y ago
First, I want to stress that I agree wholeheartedly that the social networking sites’ focus on engagement is clearly harmful to society, and the dark patterns they use to drive engagement are morally repugnant. I want that to stop as much as anybody. I’m not seeing an answer in your reply to my questions of what change to Section 230 you think would do something about that, though. My understanding of S230 is that it says (1) information services are considered distributors rather than publishers when it comes to liability, and (2) if they exercise limited editorial control in good faith by moderating objectionable content they are still considered distributors rather than publishers for the sake of liability. (Also, there are already various exceptions to the liability shield, so it is not a blanket immunity.) While you may be tired of the argument that sites will shut down, it is one legitimate potential outcome of a change to S230, and one we’ve already seen in action: SESTA-FOSTA caused Craigslist to close their personals sections even though they had no intent to facilitate sex trafficking and it would have been reasonable for them to claim that the overwhelming majority of posts were not illegal. They simply couldn’t accept the liability risk. Furthermore, as someone who has hosted an online forum about retrocomputing since 2002, losing the liability protections of S230 in the way Ted Cruz seems to want it (by eliminating the liability shield for sites which moderate content) would absolutely push me to shutter the whole site. So, please don’t act like this isn’t a real threat; there’s both precedent and I’m telling you what it would cause me to do as a hobbyist site operator. It doesn’t matter if I could eventually win a court case—I am unable and unwilling to accept liability for what other users decide to say. Since—again, as far as I know—it is not illegal for social networking sites to use algorithms or dark patterns to drive engagement, and since S230 is a shield only against liability for the content of posts made by users even in the presence of limited good faith moderation of the content, I ask once again the same questions: what is it that you think Section 230 does that “allows platforms to be judge, jury, and executioner”? (It doesn’t allow the platforms to modify UGC in a way which changes its meaning, for example.) What harm, specifically, do you think the Section 230 liability shield is causing? (It doesn’t shield providers against crimes that don’t exist, or crimes that they commit themselves.) What change, specifically, do you think should be made to cure that harm? How would your proposed change not cause sites with UGC to either shut down entirely (thereby eliminating the ability to speak out at all), require pre-approval for all UGC (thereby increasing the amount of censorship), or be overrun by spammers and trolls (thereby making the site useless)? Looking forward to any answers to my questions above. (EDIT: Clarity and tone.)