4 ms·

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 t

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
> SESTA-FOSTA caused Craigslist to close their personals sections I would argue this was an explicitly political move. Craigslist is primarily funded by paid job ads... personal isn't a profit center for them. (So, it's unlikely to apply to a more general eyeball-need like Google/Facebook.) And they were using the threat of doing so as a reason SESTA-FOSTA should be blocked. "Missed connections" is both still alive, and heck, "general" has some very suggestive offers in it in my region. I hardly believe SESTA-FOSTA has murdered the ability to post personals online. Which is to say, the shuttering of websites such as yours if this should come to pass is a self-fulfilling prophecy: You're threatening to do it because you don't want the law to change. That doesn't mean the risk of liability is unreasonable because you intend to follow through with that threat. It doesn't mean plenty of others aren't willing to operate websites with normal levels of liability found in... every other type of business. As to your questions, Section 230 allows platforms to moderate content without facing any liability for the content that remains. The issue is that the decisionmaking they're allowed to employ here is completely unregulated and completely opaque... and tied very much to that revenue generation: Again, adult content sees a block because advertisers don't like it, and crazy political theories thrive because it pushes engagement. We're not talking about "oh no, Facebook might be liable for one post they decided not to remove". We're talking about an entire decisionmaking regime that is built around their revenue. Why on earth shouldn't they be liable for that? If Facebook at any point reviewed QAnon posts, decided "nah, that doesn't violate our policies", and let them continue... again, we wouldn't be going after Facebook for the user-generated content, but Facebook's explicit decisions about how to handle that content. Where the intent comes into the scenario. And yeah, that absolutely means we need to remove the liability shield. Because at least until we can dig into the case and order access to emails and records, seeing what posts are left up is all we have. And sure, I'd love to come at this another way too: Require the search, recommendation, and ranking algorithms of major tech platforms to be publicly shared and all moderation decisions subject to human appeal. Another avenue to that appeal though, is that people must be empowered to take a company to court over those moderation issues when their appeals internally are exhausted, which rolls back to removing liability protection.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

> SESTA-FOSTA caused Craigslist to close their personals sections I would argue this was an explicitly political move. Craigslist is primarily funded by paid job ads... personal isn't a profit center for them. (So, it's unlikely to apply to a more general eyeball-need like Google/Facebook.) And they were using the threat of doing so as a reason SESTA-FOSTA should be blocked. "Missed connections" is both still alive, and heck, "general" has some very suggestive offers in it in my region. I hardly believe SESTA-FOSTA has murdered the ability to post personals online. Which is to say, the shuttering of websites such as yours if this should come to pass is a self-fulfilling prophecy: You're threatening to do it because you don't want the law to change. That doesn't mean the risk of liability is unreasonable because you intend to follow through with that threat. It doesn't mean plenty of others aren't willing to operate websites with normal levels of liability found in... every other type of business. As to your questions, Section 230 allows platforms to moderate content without facing any liability for the content that remains. The issue is that the decisionmaking they're allowed to employ here is completely unregulated and completely opaque... and tied very much to that revenue generation: Again, adult content sees a block because advertisers don't like it, and crazy political theories thrive because it pushes engagement. We're not talking about "oh no, Facebook might be liable for one post they decided not to remove". We're talking about an entire decisionmaking regime that is built around their revenue. Why on earth shouldn't they be liable for that? If Facebook at any point reviewed QAnon posts, decided "nah, that doesn't violate our policies", and let them continue... again, we wouldn't be going after Facebook for the user-generated content, but Facebook's explicit decisions about how to handle that content. Where the intent comes into the scenario. And yeah, that absolutely means we need to remove the liability shield. Because at least until we can dig into the case and order access to emails and records, seeing what posts are left up is all we have. And sure, I'd love to come at this another way too: Require the search, recommendation, and ranking algorithms of major tech platforms to be publicly shared and all moderation decisions subject to human appeal. Another avenue to that appeal though, is that people must be empowered to take a company to court over those moderation issues when their appeals internally are exhausted, which rolls back to removing liability protection.