3 ms·

Because there is no evidentiary reason to suggest otherwise.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
This sounds like you're saying "Let's make this change, because we don't have any evidence that it will bite us." Given that the evidence would show up after the change, that seems rather short-sighted. But if you want evidence, I would cite the lawsuit climate in the US. If it smells like money, there will be a lawyer willing to come up with a case, no matter how far-fetched or unrealistic. I've seen too many examples of that over the years. (If you want specifics, the one I'm most familiar with is SCO v IBM.) So if you make this change, I say there is enough evidence to believe that some lawyer will decide there's money to be made finding "hate speech" or "discriminator speech" or something on HN, and suing YCombinator for it. (Because even if HN per se doesn't have a lot of money, YCombinator does.) And if that happens, that's probably the end of HN.
- austincheney 6y ago
  Imaginary speculation based on conspiracy theory type assumptions isn’t a strong reason to do anything. That is why I referenced the concerned logical fallacy, because fallacies aren’t worthy of supporting arguments.
teraflop 6y ago
Are you not aware of the history behind CDA section 230? There was at least one actual court case in which the online service Prodigy was successfully sued for libel, on the grounds that by employing moderators to remove "offensive" content, Prodigy automatically became responsible for everything its users posted that was not removed. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history Where's your argument that returning the law to its previous state wouldn't result in exactly the same thing happening again?
- austincheney 6y ago
  Because lawsuits, and lawyers, are expensive and slow. It’s the same reason lawsuits of equal caliber and concern aren’t generally more common everywhere else. Releasing section 230 would raise the probability of a law suit from 0 to equal every other venue.

This sounds like you're saying "Let's make this change, because we don't have any evidence that it will bite us." Given that the evidence would show up after the change, that seems rather short-sighted. But if you want evidence, I would cite the lawsuit climate in the US. If it smells like money, there will be a lawyer willing to come up with a case, no matter how far-fetched or unrealistic. I've seen too many examples of that over the years. (If you want specifics, the one I'm most familiar with is SCO v IBM.) So if you make this change, I say there is enough evidence to believe that some lawyer will decide there's money to be made finding "hate speech" or "discriminator speech" or something on HN, and suing YCombinator for it. (Because even if HN per se doesn't have a lot of money, YCombinator does.) And if that happens, that's probably the end of HN.

austincheney 6y ago
Imaginary speculation based on conspiracy theory type assumptions isn’t a strong reason to do anything. That is why I referenced the concerned logical fallacy, because fallacies aren’t worthy of supporting arguments.

teraflop 6y ago

Are you not aware of the history behind CDA section 230? There was at least one actual court case in which the online service Prodigy was successfully sued for libel, on the grounds that by employing moderators to remove "offensive" content, Prodigy automatically became responsible for everything its users posted that was not removed. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/legislative-history Where's your argument that returning the law to its previous state wouldn't result in exactly the same thing happening again?

austincheney 6y ago
Because lawsuits, and lawyers, are expensive and slow. It’s the same reason lawsuits of equal caliber and concern aren’t generally more common everywhere else. Releasing section 230 would raise the probability of a law suit from 0 to equal every other venue.