5 ms·

>Platforms can be neutral and once were Any examples? > Algorithms can be made that are content neutral How so? Where does the law say you can be either a s

>Platforms can be neutral and once were Any examples? > Algorithms can be made that are content neutral How so? Where does the law say you can be either a service provider or a publisher?

nostromo 6y ago
There are many examples of neutral platforms that put users in the driver's seat: early Twitter and Facebook, USNET, email, RSS, WWW. The law before Section 230 was such that if you moderated content, you were responsible for it. You can read about CompuServe and Prodigy's different approaches to moderation and liability. Congress decided that internet services should be given immunity from liability for third-party content, but it's clear their intent was not to allow two or three megacorps to act in partisan ways by blocking access to journalism. They are acting as publishers now and I would not be surprised if Section 230 is amended by congress.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  WWW, RSS, email are not platforms. They're protocols/services that many platforms are built on. That's a really weird comparison to try to draw between them and Twitter/Facebook.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  Let's put it another way. Bookstores are not liable for defamatory books they sell (unless they authored them). That has never been conditioned on the bookstore being "neutral"- a Marxist bookstore is treated the same as Barnes and Noble. > it's clear their intent was not to allow two or three megacorps to act in partisan ways by blocking access to journalism Is it clear? Have you read what the authors of Section 230 have had to say recently? https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200921/00260045345/authors-cda-230-do-some-serious-230-mythbusting-response-to-comments-submitted-to-fcc.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200921/00260045345/autho... "The first is that Section 230 does not require political neutrality. Claiming to "interpret" Section 230 to require political neutrality, or to condition its Good Samaritan protections on political neutrality, would erase the law we wrote and substitute a completely different one, with opposite effect. The second is that any governmental attempt to enforce political neutrality on websites would be hopelessly subjective, complicated, burdensome, and unworkable. The third is that any such legislation or regulation intended to override a website's moderation decisions would amount to compelling speech, in violation of the First Amendment" (pg 17) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7213938-2020-09-17-Cox-Wyden-FCC-Reply-Comments-Final-2.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7213938-2020-09-17-C...
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > ... it's clear their intent was not to allow two or three megacorps to act in partisan ways by blocking access to journalism From roywiggins' post earlier[1], a direct quote from one of the authors of 230: "The first is that Section 230 does not require political neutrality." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24923980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24923980

>Platforms can be neutral and once were Any examples? > Algorithms can be made that are content neutral How so? Where does the law say you can be either a service provider or a publisher?

nostromo 6y ago

There are many examples of neutral platforms that put users in the driver's seat: early Twitter and Facebook, USNET, email, RSS, WWW. The law before Section 230 was such that if you moderated content, you were responsible for it. You can read about CompuServe and Prodigy's different approaches to moderation and liability. Congress decided that internet services should be given immunity from liability for third-party content, but it's clear their intent was not to allow two or three megacorps to act in partisan ways by blocking access to journalism. They are acting as publishers now and I would not be surprised if Section 230 is amended by congress.

Jtsummers 6y ago
WWW, RSS, email are not platforms. They're protocols/services that many platforms are built on. That's a really weird comparison to try to draw between them and Twitter/Facebook.
roywiggins 6y ago
Let's put it another way. Bookstores are not liable for defamatory books they sell (unless they authored them). That has never been conditioned on the bookstore being "neutral"- a Marxist bookstore is treated the same as Barnes and Noble. > it's clear their intent was not to allow two or three megacorps to act in partisan ways by blocking access to journalism Is it clear? Have you read what the authors of Section 230 have had to say recently? https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200921/00260045345/authors-cda-230-do-some-serious-230-mythbusting-response-to-comments-submitted-to-fcc.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200921/00260045345/autho... "The first is that Section 230 does not require political neutrality. Claiming to "interpret" Section 230 to require political neutrality, or to condition its Good Samaritan protections on political neutrality, would erase the law we wrote and substitute a completely different one, with opposite effect. The second is that any governmental attempt to enforce political neutrality on websites would be hopelessly subjective, complicated, burdensome, and unworkable. The third is that any such legislation or regulation intended to override a website's moderation decisions would amount to compelling speech, in violation of the First Amendment" (pg 17) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7213938-2020-09-17-Cox-Wyden-FCC-Reply-Comments-Final-2.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7213938-2020-09-17-C...
mullingitover 6y ago
> ... it's clear their intent was not to allow two or three megacorps to act in partisan ways by blocking access to journalism From roywiggins' post earlier[1], a direct quote from one of the authors of 230: "The first is that Section 230 does not require political neutrality." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24923980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24923980