5 ms·

I don't see why this needs to a binary decision. Clearly we can't allow monopolies to use laws intended to protect small players. So why not apply the protect

I don't see why this needs to a binary decision. Clearly we can't allow monopolies to use laws intended to protect small players. So why not apply the protections selectively ? Take 230 protections off any player that achieves $$ X billion revenue, Y DAUs, IPOs, Total funding, total staff, whatever. Make a red line of what constitutes an internet forum monopoly , and just enforce it. I am not sure why this option is never mentioned ?

qball 6y ago
Because it's not a sound bite, and because it's more about "owning the Democrats in Silicon Valley" than it is about solving the actual problem. Also, the more effective solutions would diminish government power and is thus undesirable; restricting the ability of CloudFlare or hosting companies to turn away customers means that they no longer get to lean on CloudFlare to take down websites that they don't want, much like how they currently use financial institutions to do the same kind of thing (Operation Chokepoint).
nobody9999 6y ago
>Clearly we can't allow monopolies to use laws intended to protect small players. On what basis do you make the judgement that section 230 was enacted to protect only small players? That doesn't appear to have been Congress' intent at all. In fact, while Congress was debating[1] section 230, Representative Christopher Cox[0] said: "But another New York court, the New York Supreme Court, held that Prodigy, CompuServe's competitor, could be held liable in a $200 million defamation case because someone had posted on one of their bulletin boards, a financial bulletin board, some remarks that apparently were untrue about an investment bank, that the investment bank would go out of business and was run by crooks. Prodigy said, ``No, no; just like CompuServe, we did not control or edit that information, nor could we, frankly. We have over 60,000 of these messages each day, we have over 2 million subscribers, and so you cannot proceed with this kind of a case against us.'' The court said, ``No, no, no, no, you are different; you are different than CompuServe because you are a family-friendly network. You advertise yourself as such. You employ screening and blocking software that keeps obscenity off of your network. You have people who are hired to exercise an emergency delete function to keep that kind of material away from your subscribers. You don't permit nudity on your system. You have content guidelines. You, therefore, are going to face higher, stricker liability because you tried to exercise some control over offensive material.'' Mr. Chairman, that is backward. We want to encourage people like Prodigy, like CompuServe, like America Online, like the new Microsoft network, to do everything possible for us, the customer, to help us control, at the portals of our computer, at the front door of our house, what comes in and what our children see. This technology is very quickly becoming available, and in fact every one of us will be able to tailor what we see to our own tastes." Note that the folks Rep. Cox was talking about, Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy and Microsoft were the big boys back then. So I'm not sure where you get the idea that only the small players were the intended beneficiaries of section 230. To be clear, I have no objection if you (and others) think there should be changes to section 230, then we should have a discussion about what changes should be made and why. I just think we should deal in facts and data and not make unsupported assertions about, well, anything -- especially when it comes to proposed legislative changes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Cox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Cox [1] https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1995/08/04/house-section/article/H8460-1 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1995/08/04/hou...
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
  The fact that the congressman speaking does not mean his statement deoes extrapolate for the entirety of congress. Did we hear other arguments on front of the Chairman against said protection ? His speech, for all we now, can be qualified by political donations received from the interested parties for him to have a certain opinion. However for the issue at hand, lets give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that congress shared this opinion in majority and no financial interests were at play. On what basis do you make the judgement that section 230 was intended to protect monopolies ? Big boys != monopolies. Can you successfully argue that AOL or MS were internet monopolies then ?
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >On what basis do you make the judgement that section 230 was intended to protect monopolies ? Because section 230 protects everyone. There is no limitation in the law that says "if you have x% market share, you are not covered under the law." My point WRT Prodigy/AOL, etc. was that there certainly wasn't the intent to exclude the large players (which is what you asserted without evidence). In fact, a major impetus for section 230 was the Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy decision[0]. And so I'll ask you: On what basis do you make the judgement that section 230 wasn't intended to protect everyone? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >The fact that the congressman speaking does not mean his statement deoes extrapolate for the entirety of congress. Did we hear other arguments on front of the Chairman against said protection ? Given that Chris Cox (the congressman quoted) co-sponsored and co-wrote section 230 with Ron Wyden, his take on what it was all about is absolutely relevant, as is the fact that there was a competing bill that when finally passed, incorporated section 230. A piece of unsolicited advice: Learn some history, friend.

qball 6y ago

Because it's not a sound bite, and because it's more about "owning the Democrats in Silicon Valley" than it is about solving the actual problem. Also, the more effective solutions would diminish government power and is thus undesirable; restricting the ability of CloudFlare or hosting companies to turn away customers means that they no longer get to lean on CloudFlare to take down websites that they don't want, much like how they currently use financial institutions to do the same kind of thing (Operation Chokepoint).

nobody9999 6y ago

>Clearly we can't allow monopolies to use laws intended to protect small players. On what basis do you make the judgement that section 230 was enacted to protect only small players? That doesn't appear to have been Congress' intent at all. In fact, while Congress was debating[1] section 230, Representative Christopher Cox[0] said: "But another New York court, the New York Supreme Court, held that Prodigy, CompuServe's competitor, could be held liable in a $200 million defamation case because someone had posted on one of their bulletin boards, a financial bulletin board, some remarks that apparently were untrue about an investment bank, that the investment bank would go out of business and was run by crooks. Prodigy said, ``No, no; just like CompuServe, we did not control or edit that information, nor could we, frankly. We have over 60,000 of these messages each day, we have over 2 million subscribers, and so you cannot proceed with this kind of a case against us.'' The court said, ``No, no, no, no, you are different; you are different than CompuServe because you are a family-friendly network. You advertise yourself as such. You employ screening and blocking software that keeps obscenity off of your network. You have people who are hired to exercise an emergency delete function to keep that kind of material away from your subscribers. You don't permit nudity on your system. You have content guidelines. You, therefore, are going to face higher, stricker liability because you tried to exercise some control over offensive material.'' Mr. Chairman, that is backward. We want to encourage people like Prodigy, like CompuServe, like America Online, like the new Microsoft network, to do everything possible for us, the customer, to help us control, at the portals of our computer, at the front door of our house, what comes in and what our children see. This technology is very quickly becoming available, and in fact every one of us will be able to tailor what we see to our own tastes." Note that the folks Rep. Cox was talking about, Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy and Microsoft were the big boys back then. So I'm not sure where you get the idea that only the small players were the intended beneficiaries of section 230. To be clear, I have no objection if you (and others) think there should be changes to section 230, then we should have a discussion about what changes should be made and why. I just think we should deal in facts and data and not make unsupported assertions about, well, anything -- especially when it comes to proposed legislative changes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Cox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Cox [1] https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1995/08/04/house-section/article/H8460-1 https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/1995/08/04/hou...

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
The fact that the congressman speaking does not mean his statement deoes extrapolate for the entirety of congress. Did we hear other arguments on front of the Chairman against said protection ? His speech, for all we now, can be qualified by political donations received from the interested parties for him to have a certain opinion. However for the issue at hand, lets give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that congress shared this opinion in majority and no financial interests were at play. On what basis do you make the judgement that section 230 was intended to protect monopolies ? Big boys != monopolies. Can you successfully argue that AOL or MS were internet monopolies then ?
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >On what basis do you make the judgement that section 230 was intended to protect monopolies ? Because section 230 protects everyone. There is no limitation in the law that says "if you have x% market share, you are not covered under the law." My point WRT Prodigy/AOL, etc. was that there certainly wasn't the intent to exclude the large players (which is what you asserted without evidence). In fact, a major impetus for section 230 was the Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy decision[0]. And so I'll ask you: On what basis do you make the judgement that section 230 wasn't intended to protect everyone? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >The fact that the congressman speaking does not mean his statement deoes extrapolate for the entirety of congress. Did we hear other arguments on front of the Chairman against said protection ? Given that Chris Cox (the congressman quoted) co-sponsored and co-wrote section 230 with Ron Wyden, his take on what it was all about is absolutely relevant, as is the fact that there was a competing bill that when finally passed, incorporated section 230. A piece of unsolicited advice: Learn some history, friend.