7 ms·

Full repeal of Section 230 to push for $2k stimulus checks

29 points by FLIINO 6y ago

cl0ckt0wer 6y ago
If they repeal 230, do we have to pick our comments from a preapproved list?
- MadVikingGod 6y ago
  Nope, there will just be this giant wall that will only let non-banned subjects through, burning the rest to a crisp. I'm actually scared what the internet will look like less 230. I'm guessing we will see more 4chan then pre-approved comments, just because that scales easier.
  - mcphage 6y ago
    > I'm guessing we will see more 4chan then pre-approved comments What would prevent these new 4chans from being sued out of existence?
- chrisco255 6y ago
  That's already the present situation on social media. * This claim about social media bias has been disputed.
joshkrycerick 6y ago
the majority of the bill actually has to do with election fraud.. really really interesting.
InTheArena 6y ago
Related - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/12/facebook-doomsday-machine/617384/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/12/faceb... I was consciences that the lack of 230 would doom the internet. Looking at the cesspit it’s become, I don’t Think It’s unreasonable to restrict section 230 a bit more. Let’s see what the language is in the bill. Reporting like this is too light on details.
- garmaine 6y ago
  The problems with big tech on the internet have NOTHING to do with section 230. If anything, 230 protects the little guys and disruptive startups.
  - Ancapistani 6y ago
    Can you provide some context on how you believe repealing Section 230 would disproportionately impact “little guys and disruptive startups”? To be clear, I’m not taking a counter position to your statement; I’d like to understand your position better.
    - garmaine 6y ago
      What Section 230 does is make business which operate platforms not liable for the user content posted on those platforms. It's a "safe harbor" provision that prevents any company from having to take on the legal liabilities that come from hosting user-generated content they have no real control over. In short, if you post something on Facebook that someone else doesn't like, that person can't sue Facebook. But, crucially, there's nothing special about Facebook, Twitter, or the other big names here. If I make my own social media startup, I would also enjoy the same protections. It's the same reason you can't sue Wikipedia for libel if you don't like what's written about you. Indeed, wikipedia can only really exist because of Section 230 protections. Now why would the negative effects be disproportionate towards small entities and startups? Because the big guys can afford their own content moderation systems. They certainly don't want to take on the role of censor, but they're perfectly able to. Little nimble startups can't, which makes repealing section 230 a form of regulatory capture by existing social media companies.
- rognjen 6y ago
  > Let’s see what the language is in the bill. You can see the language by scrolling down a bit and looking at the embedded document. It's near the top of the second page. It begins with: "In general Section230 .... is repealed."
- MDWolinski 6y ago
aazaa 6y ago
> “Big Tech must not get protections of Section 230!” Trump said in a statement Sunday. “Voter fraud must be fixed!” Taken at face value, this statement links two issues that many people wouldn't think are linked. The president is blaming social media for his election loss and seeking to repeal section 230 as the remedy. No matter how many times this comes up, it's extraordinary. First, because the president owes his 2016 win to social media company protections under section 230. Second, because the president almost won a second term thanks to it. Third, because section 230 is from what I gather a lonely diamond in the stinking pile of rubbish that is the Communications Decency Act.
- Ancapistani 6y ago
  > The president is blaming social media for his election loss and seeking to repeal section 230 as the remedy. Is that true? From my perspective, it seems like Trump is pointing to the censorship of “big tech” - Twitter and Facebook, in particular - as having largely suppressed stories that would have been negative for Biden, then having suppressed voter fraud allegations in the immediate aftermath of the election. This is only the perspective that I infer to be his. I don’t really agree or disagree with it. From where I sit, it has become increasingly difficult to find reliable reporting about any political topic.
rognjen 6y ago
I think I really need to learn about how and why unrelated aspects can be part of the same bill. In this case the stimulus, Section 230, election advisory committee and election access disclosure. Seems like they should be at least three bills.
- danielrpa 6y ago
  This is, unfortunately, an old and well established legislative practice. It allows parties to combine minor interests with major interests in all-or-nothing bundles. It's essentially a (often misused) negotiation tool.
MDWolinski 6y ago
McConnell has one goal by tying the $2k stimulus check, section 230 and voter fraud issues together. To create a poison pill package so Democrats won’t vote on the bill and allow the Republicans to blame them for not allowing the $2k checks. If nothing else, the idea that one man dictates the governance of our country clearly shows that the congress is broken and there needs to be changes made to allow any member to bring forth bills to be voted on. Regardless of which party has the majority.
grumio 6y ago
Imagine flagging an article about section 230 as off-topic for HN... It would be a disaster for every website with user-generated content, especially smaller ones.
- akmarinov 6y ago
  Can’t companies migrate away from the US in that case? Sure it’s unthinkable, but if they don’t have any presence in the states you can’t sue a foreign company for doing business on the internet? What would the US’s recourse be? Start doing a Great Firewall?
  - grumio 6y ago
    I suppose you're right. US would come to be known as anti-user-generated-content, as Australia came to be known as a place where the gov can compel companies to make backdoors. Companies would migrate their workforce, servers, etc.. Maybe not the death of the global internet, but not good for the US. "Australian tech companies have said that the bill could hurt their business overseas, because customers would doubt their promises to protect encrypted data." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/australia/encryption-bill-nauru.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/australia/encryptio...
stevenalowe 6y ago
as a nerd aside, i find it interesting that the bill is literally a changeset

29 points by FLIINO 6y ago

cl0ckt0wer 6y ago

If they repeal 230, do we have to pick our comments from a preapproved list?

MadVikingGod 6y ago
Nope, there will just be this giant wall that will only let non-banned subjects through, burning the rest to a crisp. I'm actually scared what the internet will look like less 230. I'm guessing we will see more 4chan then pre-approved comments, just because that scales easier.
- mcphage 6y ago
  > I'm guessing we will see more 4chan then pre-approved comments What would prevent these new 4chans from being sued out of existence?
chrisco255 6y ago
That's already the present situation on social media. * This claim about social media bias has been disputed.

joshkrycerick 6y ago

the majority of the bill actually has to do with election fraud.. really really interesting.

InTheArena 6y ago

Related - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/12/facebook-doomsday-machine/617384/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/12/faceb... I was consciences that the lack of 230 would doom the internet. Looking at the cesspit it’s become, I don’t Think It’s unreasonable to restrict section 230 a bit more. Let’s see what the language is in the bill. Reporting like this is too light on details.

garmaine 6y ago
The problems with big tech on the internet have NOTHING to do with section 230. If anything, 230 protects the little guys and disruptive startups.
- Ancapistani 6y ago
  Can you provide some context on how you believe repealing Section 230 would disproportionately impact “little guys and disruptive startups”? To be clear, I’m not taking a counter position to your statement; I’d like to understand your position better.
  - garmaine 6y ago
    What Section 230 does is make business which operate platforms not liable for the user content posted on those platforms. It's a "safe harbor" provision that prevents any company from having to take on the legal liabilities that come from hosting user-generated content they have no real control over. In short, if you post something on Facebook that someone else doesn't like, that person can't sue Facebook. But, crucially, there's nothing special about Facebook, Twitter, or the other big names here. If I make my own social media startup, I would also enjoy the same protections. It's the same reason you can't sue Wikipedia for libel if you don't like what's written about you. Indeed, wikipedia can only really exist because of Section 230 protections. Now why would the negative effects be disproportionate towards small entities and startups? Because the big guys can afford their own content moderation systems. They certainly don't want to take on the role of censor, but they're perfectly able to. Little nimble startups can't, which makes repealing section 230 a form of regulatory capture by existing social media companies.
rognjen 6y ago
> Let’s see what the language is in the bill. You can see the language by scrolling down a bit and looking at the embedded document. It's near the top of the second page. It begins with: "In general Section230 .... is repealed."
MDWolinski 6y ago

aazaa 6y ago

> “Big Tech must not get protections of Section 230!” Trump said in a statement Sunday. “Voter fraud must be fixed!” Taken at face value, this statement links two issues that many people wouldn't think are linked. The president is blaming social media for his election loss and seeking to repeal section 230 as the remedy. No matter how many times this comes up, it's extraordinary. First, because the president owes his 2016 win to social media company protections under section 230. Second, because the president almost won a second term thanks to it. Third, because section 230 is from what I gather a lonely diamond in the stinking pile of rubbish that is the Communications Decency Act.

Ancapistani 6y ago
> The president is blaming social media for his election loss and seeking to repeal section 230 as the remedy. Is that true? From my perspective, it seems like Trump is pointing to the censorship of “big tech” - Twitter and Facebook, in particular - as having largely suppressed stories that would have been negative for Biden, then having suppressed voter fraud allegations in the immediate aftermath of the election. This is only the perspective that I infer to be his. I don’t really agree or disagree with it. From where I sit, it has become increasingly difficult to find reliable reporting about any political topic.

rognjen 6y ago

I think I really need to learn about how and why unrelated aspects can be part of the same bill. In this case the stimulus, Section 230, election advisory committee and election access disclosure. Seems like they should be at least three bills.

danielrpa 6y ago
This is, unfortunately, an old and well established legislative practice. It allows parties to combine minor interests with major interests in all-or-nothing bundles. It's essentially a (often misused) negotiation tool.

MDWolinski 6y ago

McConnell has one goal by tying the $2k stimulus check, section 230 and voter fraud issues together. To create a poison pill package so Democrats won’t vote on the bill and allow the Republicans to blame them for not allowing the $2k checks. If nothing else, the idea that one man dictates the governance of our country clearly shows that the congress is broken and there needs to be changes made to allow any member to bring forth bills to be voted on. Regardless of which party has the majority.

grumio 6y ago

Imagine flagging an article about section 230 as off-topic for HN... It would be a disaster for every website with user-generated content, especially smaller ones.

akmarinov 6y ago
Can’t companies migrate away from the US in that case? Sure it’s unthinkable, but if they don’t have any presence in the states you can’t sue a foreign company for doing business on the internet? What would the US’s recourse be? Start doing a Great Firewall?
- grumio 6y ago
  I suppose you're right. US would come to be known as anti-user-generated-content, as Australia came to be known as a place where the gov can compel companies to make backdoors. Companies would migrate their workforce, servers, etc.. Maybe not the death of the global internet, but not good for the US. "Australian tech companies have said that the bill could hurt their business overseas, because customers would doubt their promises to protect encrypted data." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/australia/encryption-bill-nauru.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/australia/encryptio...

stevenalowe 6y ago

as a nerd aside, i find it interesting that the bill is literally a changeset