3 ms·

the stupid problem here is that he's saying "because monopolies like twitter, Facebook, etc exist, section 230 should be repealed", while ignoring entirely that

by olliej 6y ago

the stupid problem here is that he's saying "because monopolies like twitter, Facebook, etc exist, section 230 should be repealed", while ignoring entirely that those giant businesses would be the only ones able to afford to host user content at all, and would actively suppress all remotely controversial content, including, but not limited to, reviews, social commentary, political commentary, etc. Or alternatively they censor absolutely nothing, so all the terrible content the author is complaining about would proliferate and be unblockable - goodbye "report tweet" button, etc that would be moderation that implies twitter is a publisher. Goodbye muting, etc because again: filtering the content risks making you a publisher. Goodbye spam filtering, that makes you a publisher. No small company could afford this, so would necessarily remove all comment sections, etc. It's questionable whether wikipedia could have any kind of restrictions on what people could say or do in articles.

austincheney 6y ago
You are confounding publishing for hosting as convenient for your argument. A publisher need not host anything and likewise a content host need not publish anything.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >You are confounding publishing for hosting as convenient for your argument. A publisher need not host anything and likewise a content host need not publish anything. Those are true statements, however Section 230 doesn't say anything even approaching that, nor are those statements relevant to what section 230 does or how it is applied. I've already been downvoted in this discussion for this (although posting a link to actual facts seems an odd thing to downvote, but I don't judge), but I'll take the hit again to share some facts with you. The title may be snarky, but the information is actually quite good and provides specific examples as to why section 230 helps you, me, HackerNews, maintainers of git repositories, mirror sites, forwarders of email and many, many others much more than it helps Twitter or Facebook: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... Edit: Fixed typo.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    It says exactly that. Section 230(c)(1): No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. So then be a publisher or content host but not both and then you don't need section 230 for protection at all, according to the letter of law. That said section 230 was intended to protect things like ISPs and email providers from frivolous lawsuits, but in practice primarily benefits online advertising companies and social media from valid lawsuits. Even if section 230 were to evaporate tomorrow Hacker News remains in no greater danger of lawsuits than any other medium currently not protected by section 230.
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >So then be a publisher or content host but not both and then you don't need section 230 for protection at all, according to the letter of law Really? Tell that to the judge who decided Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy[0]. The law does distinguish between "interactive computer services" and "information content providers," but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying "platform" or "publisher." There is no "certification" or "decision" that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
      - austincheney 6y ago
        Stratton was distinguished from an earlier Compuserve case due to content moderation and that is all the case is notable for. The case was never decided by a judge as Section 230 had gone into effect before judgement rendering any judgement moot. > It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else. No, it only protects the web site, as a service provider. Users of the web sites are not protected by Section 230 and can still be sued. This has happened frequently in the past when the RIAA would sue users of various media sharing tools.

by olliej 6y ago

austincheney 6y ago

You are confounding publishing for hosting as convenient for your argument. A publisher need not host anything and likewise a content host need not publish anything.

nobody9999 6y ago
>You are confounding publishing for hosting as convenient for your argument. A publisher need not host anything and likewise a content host need not publish anything. Those are true statements, however Section 230 doesn't say anything even approaching that, nor are those statements relevant to what section 230 does or how it is applied. I've already been downvoted in this discussion for this (although posting a link to actual facts seems an odd thing to downvote, but I don't judge), but I'll take the hit again to share some facts with you. The title may be snarky, but the information is actually quite good and provides specific examples as to why section 230 helps you, me, HackerNews, maintainers of git repositories, mirror sites, forwarders of email and many, many others much more than it helps Twitter or Facebook: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... Edit: Fixed typo.
- austincheney 6y ago
  It says exactly that. Section 230(c)(1): No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. So then be a publisher or content host but not both and then you don't need section 230 for protection at all, according to the letter of law. That said section 230 was intended to protect things like ISPs and email providers from frivolous lawsuits, but in practice primarily benefits online advertising companies and social media from valid lawsuits. Even if section 230 were to evaporate tomorrow Hacker News remains in no greater danger of lawsuits than any other medium currently not protected by section 230.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >So then be a publisher or content host but not both and then you don't need section 230 for protection at all, according to the letter of law Really? Tell that to the judge who decided Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy[0]. The law does distinguish between "interactive computer services" and "information content providers," but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying "platform" or "publisher." There is no "certification" or "decision" that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
    - austincheney 6y ago
      Stratton was distinguished from an earlier Compuserve case due to content moderation and that is all the case is notable for. The case was never decided by a judge as Section 230 had gone into effect before judgement rendering any judgement moot. > It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else. No, it only protects the web site, as a service provider. Users of the web sites are not protected by Section 230 and can still be sued. This has happened frequently in the past when the RIAA would sue users of various media sharing tools.