5 ms·

You can still sue the poster. Section 230 just means you cant sue the service provider for defamation and slander. Do you think phone service providers should

by anfilt 6y ago

You can still sue the poster. Section 230 just means you cant sue the service provider for defamation and slander. Do you think phone service providers should be sued for conversations their subscribers have? Similar thing. Also without it you could sue companies like cloud flare, aws or anyone providing hosting infrastructure.

postmeta 6y ago
While I agree you shouldn't be able to sue service providers, I think it is different because Twitter and Facebook recommend things for you to read and amplify the message. The recommendation/amplification aspect is what needs liability.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  What about bookstores? They make recommendations too. Imagine if every used bookstore had to send every book they resold to a lawyer to make sure it didn't defame anyone.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    If a bookstore promoted a libelous book to millions of people, then yeah, I'd expect them to be as liable as the publisher and author.
    - roywiggins 6y ago
      They absolutely aren't treated the same as publishers: "Thus, newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters are liable for republication of libel or slander because they have editorial control over their communications. On the other hand, bookstores, libraries, and other distributors of material are liable for republication only if they know, or had reason to know, that the statement is defamatory." https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law/libel-and-slander https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law... In other words: they aren't expected to have actually read every word of every book they sell. Publishers, newspapers, etc, are. But if a book defames me on page 154, the law doesn't hold the bookstore responsible unless it knew. Once it does know, you could probably sue. But that's not the same as treating it like a publisher- it's a different standard.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      In brief searching I could not find a case where this was true. I don't think bookstores have a duty to read and fact check every book they sell in order to insure that no third party is damaged. It appears to me that they have a duty to the whomever they bought the books with to adhere to whatever contract they signed and a duty to the buyer to provide what the buyer paid for in terms of it actually being Stephen King's IT and not for example the result of their cat walking over their keyboard printed on 597 pages. It doesn't appear that they even have a duty to the buyer for it to be a good and useful work. The duty you want to imagine is real would seem to be impossible to reasonably provide because the cost of paying out every time they were wrong would mean books would all cost $500 and in turn the book stores would all shut down. The only viable way to sell books would be to run a website overseas in a less insane jurisdiction selling epubs. If you wanted to take it to the next level and enforce liability for anything that goes over the wire you could just give up 99.9% of content in the universe?
  - tt433 6y ago
    You can wager that the human involved with book recommendations will do a better job than an algorithm trying to show you metaphorical train derailments or car accidents 24/7
- anfilt 6y ago
  but where do you draw the line? Does a search engine count?
  - postmeta 6y ago
    maybe we could have a system where if the company is open source/transparent with their recommendation engine and data they are free from liability, but if they profit off the recommendation/notification content they are liable. profit motive for recommendation/amplification is probably what damages humans at scale
- panarky 6y ago
  If 60 Minutes interviews the US President, and the US President says that a pandemic is not dangerous, and viewers rely on that statement to the detriment of their respiratory systems, should the injured viewers or their estates be able to sue 60 Minutes for amplifying the US President's untrue and harmful statements?
  - robomartin 6y ago
    No. They are, quite literally, reporting the truth. They are reporting EXACTLY what the president said. It isn't their job --at least not what I think the job the US Constitution should protect-- to create their own version of what he said, embellish it or modify it in any way, in support or opposition. I don't want news anchors to creatively interpret reality for me. I want facts. The interpretation is mine, not theirs. Most of them are politically biased liars.
    - postmeta 6y ago
      profit motive for recommendation/amplification is probably what damages humans at scale
    - panarky 6y ago
      Is it acceptable for 60 Minutes to choose who they put on their show? If, in their judgement, the US President is saying something that is false or dangerous, are they within their rights to say so, or to decline to broadcast that segment at all?
akira2501 6y ago
> Do you think phone service providers should be sued for conversations their subscribers have? If they have even an incidental financial benefit from this behavior and take human or algorithmic steps to encourage it on their platform, then yes. > Also without it you could sue companies like cloud flare, aws or anyone providing hosting infrastructure. And yet, telephone companies were explicitly not liable under previous doctrine without 230 even existing. The idea of a "common carrier" far predates section 230. I think it's fair to ask if companies like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Youtube should honestly deserve that common carrier status.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
mc32 6y ago
There is a diff. A phone convo is more like a Twitter DM. A regular post is akin to a broadcast (like TV, Radio, etc.)
- anfilt 6y ago
  Even then you normal would not sue the company providing the radio broadcasting equipment. Just the production making that particular radio content. Some times they were the same, but they could be different entities. Section 230 also protects those providing infrastructure for the internet as they do not have common carrier status. Also where do you draw the line between hosting and not? I can use twitter and many other sites to host images. Alot these sites grew out of an easier to use means to host content. Like what about sites like word-press and medium that also provide easy to use platforms for blogging. Should only the technically inclined be allowed to get hosting?
  - mc32 6y ago
    Yeah, the suits usually follow the money or oversight, like the host, producer and or station owners.
projektfu 6y ago
Phone services are not publishing. They are also not curating content, promoting speech. The broadcast methods that are available using the phone (robocalls, phone banks) are the same for everyone, and rely only on money and not on algorithmic measures of engage-ability. If a TV station had a call in show where the callers were pre-screened to be slanderous, would that be an example of a publisher or a common carrier? I don't know the answers but it's not so obviously clear cut as running the pipes.
prepend 6y ago
The phone company doesn’t moderate content. I think what blurs is that social media companies aren’t just dumb pipes (like cloud flare), they all have different levels of moderation based on what they decide and not only block content, but also promote content. I think if they were just going to be ISPs then 230 should apply, but it seems odd that a company can select a piece of content and show it to a million people and then not be responsible. And then alternately, they can choose to remove content due to automated and manual rules, not required by law. It seems like they should either be regulated or not. It seems off that if I solicit articles from random and print them out and mail them, I’m liable for libel. But if I review them all and publish them on a server then I’m no longer liable.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Yes, they do. Phone companies attempt to block SMS spam.
  - prepend 6y ago
    SMS spam is illegal. Phone companies also turn off service for fraud, etc. To be more precise, phone companies only block based on regulators and consistent (at least theoretically) rules based on legal authorities given to regulators.
- osgovernment 6y ago
  Mobile phone companies can "moderate" a customer or user from abusing their services. Also, traditional phone now includes VOIP, video chat, etc.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  You pay the phone company for a service. They have certain obligations they need to uphold in exchange for payment. New media isn't paid for by its consumers. Their computer, their rules. Nobody is wringing their hands over the decades of censorship by broadcast radio and television for "community standards".
  - 6y ago
phkahler 6y ago
>> You can still sue the poster. Section 230 just means you cant sue the service provider for defamation and slander. That presumes the account can be traced to a real person. I'm all for having solid end to end identity verification, but that opens a lot of doors governments and companies dont want us to have. For one it makes end to end encryption easy, as its equivalent to ensuring you aren't being MITMed.
- anfilt 6y ago
  Mandated identification is an even more terrifying idea. I already stop signing up for a site when the ask for a phone number. Last thing I want is to make easier for companies to track me. Not only that I think anonymity is important. Without you could also just as easily be threatened or harassed by people online. It cut both ways.
  - phkahler 6y ago
    >> Not only that I think anonymity is important. Without you could also just as easily be threatened or harassed by people online. If someone threatens or harasses you online, and they are not anonymous you can take action. Like you say, both ways. You can always have sites that drop your identity. It's technically easier to drop information than to verify it.

by anfilt 6y ago

postmeta 6y ago

While I agree you shouldn't be able to sue service providers, I think it is different because Twitter and Facebook recommend things for you to read and amplify the message. The recommendation/amplification aspect is what needs liability.

roywiggins 6y ago
What about bookstores? They make recommendations too. Imagine if every used bookstore had to send every book they resold to a lawyer to make sure it didn't defame anyone.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  If a bookstore promoted a libelous book to millions of people, then yeah, I'd expect them to be as liable as the publisher and author.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    They absolutely aren't treated the same as publishers: "Thus, newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters are liable for republication of libel or slander because they have editorial control over their communications. On the other hand, bookstores, libraries, and other distributors of material are liable for republication only if they know, or had reason to know, that the statement is defamatory." https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law/libel-and-slander https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law... In other words: they aren't expected to have actually read every word of every book they sell. Publishers, newspapers, etc, are. But if a book defames me on page 154, the law doesn't hold the bookstore responsible unless it knew. Once it does know, you could probably sue. But that's not the same as treating it like a publisher- it's a different standard.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    In brief searching I could not find a case where this was true. I don't think bookstores have a duty to read and fact check every book they sell in order to insure that no third party is damaged. It appears to me that they have a duty to the whomever they bought the books with to adhere to whatever contract they signed and a duty to the buyer to provide what the buyer paid for in terms of it actually being Stephen King's IT and not for example the result of their cat walking over their keyboard printed on 597 pages. It doesn't appear that they even have a duty to the buyer for it to be a good and useful work. The duty you want to imagine is real would seem to be impossible to reasonably provide because the cost of paying out every time they were wrong would mean books would all cost $500 and in turn the book stores would all shut down. The only viable way to sell books would be to run a website overseas in a less insane jurisdiction selling epubs. If you wanted to take it to the next level and enforce liability for anything that goes over the wire you could just give up 99.9% of content in the universe?
- tt433 6y ago
  You can wager that the human involved with book recommendations will do a better job than an algorithm trying to show you metaphorical train derailments or car accidents 24/7
anfilt 6y ago
but where do you draw the line? Does a search engine count?
- postmeta 6y ago
  maybe we could have a system where if the company is open source/transparent with their recommendation engine and data they are free from liability, but if they profit off the recommendation/notification content they are liable. profit motive for recommendation/amplification is probably what damages humans at scale
panarky 6y ago
If 60 Minutes interviews the US President, and the US President says that a pandemic is not dangerous, and viewers rely on that statement to the detriment of their respiratory systems, should the injured viewers or their estates be able to sue 60 Minutes for amplifying the US President's untrue and harmful statements?
- robomartin 6y ago
  No. They are, quite literally, reporting the truth. They are reporting EXACTLY what the president said. It isn't their job --at least not what I think the job the US Constitution should protect-- to create their own version of what he said, embellish it or modify it in any way, in support or opposition. I don't want news anchors to creatively interpret reality for me. I want facts. The interpretation is mine, not theirs. Most of them are politically biased liars.
  - postmeta 6y ago
    profit motive for recommendation/amplification is probably what damages humans at scale
  - panarky 6y ago
    Is it acceptable for 60 Minutes to choose who they put on their show? If, in their judgement, the US President is saying something that is false or dangerous, are they within their rights to say so, or to decline to broadcast that segment at all?

akira2501 6y ago

> Do you think phone service providers should be sued for conversations their subscribers have? If they have even an incidental financial benefit from this behavior and take human or algorithmic steps to encourage it on their platform, then yes. > Also without it you could sue companies like cloud flare, aws or anyone providing hosting infrastructure. And yet, telephone companies were explicitly not liable under previous doctrine without 230 even existing. The idea of a "common carrier" far predates section 230. I think it's fair to ask if companies like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Youtube should honestly deserve that common carrier status.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

mc32 6y ago

There is a diff. A phone convo is more like a Twitter DM. A regular post is akin to a broadcast (like TV, Radio, etc.)

anfilt 6y ago
Even then you normal would not sue the company providing the radio broadcasting equipment. Just the production making that particular radio content. Some times they were the same, but they could be different entities. Section 230 also protects those providing infrastructure for the internet as they do not have common carrier status. Also where do you draw the line between hosting and not? I can use twitter and many other sites to host images. Alot these sites grew out of an easier to use means to host content. Like what about sites like word-press and medium that also provide easy to use platforms for blogging. Should only the technically inclined be allowed to get hosting?
- mc32 6y ago
  Yeah, the suits usually follow the money or oversight, like the host, producer and or station owners.

projektfu 6y ago

Phone services are not publishing. They are also not curating content, promoting speech. The broadcast methods that are available using the phone (robocalls, phone banks) are the same for everyone, and rely only on money and not on algorithmic measures of engage-ability. If a TV station had a call in show where the callers were pre-screened to be slanderous, would that be an example of a publisher or a common carrier? I don't know the answers but it's not so obviously clear cut as running the pipes.

prepend 6y ago

The phone company doesn’t moderate content. I think what blurs is that social media companies aren’t just dumb pipes (like cloud flare), they all have different levels of moderation based on what they decide and not only block content, but also promote content. I think if they were just going to be ISPs then 230 should apply, but it seems odd that a company can select a piece of content and show it to a million people and then not be responsible. And then alternately, they can choose to remove content due to automated and manual rules, not required by law. It seems like they should either be regulated or not. It seems off that if I solicit articles from random and print them out and mail them, I’m liable for libel. But if I review them all and publish them on a server then I’m no longer liable.

renewiltord 6y ago
Yes, they do. Phone companies attempt to block SMS spam.
- prepend 6y ago
  SMS spam is illegal. Phone companies also turn off service for fraud, etc. To be more precise, phone companies only block based on regulators and consistent (at least theoretically) rules based on legal authorities given to regulators.
osgovernment 6y ago
Mobile phone companies can "moderate" a customer or user from abusing their services. Also, traditional phone now includes VOIP, video chat, etc.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
You pay the phone company for a service. They have certain obligations they need to uphold in exchange for payment. New media isn't paid for by its consumers. Their computer, their rules. Nobody is wringing their hands over the decades of censorship by broadcast radio and television for "community standards".
- 6y ago

phkahler 6y ago

>> You can still sue the poster. Section 230 just means you cant sue the service provider for defamation and slander. That presumes the account can be traced to a real person. I'm all for having solid end to end identity verification, but that opens a lot of doors governments and companies dont want us to have. For one it makes end to end encryption easy, as its equivalent to ensuring you aren't being MITMed.

anfilt 6y ago
Mandated identification is an even more terrifying idea. I already stop signing up for a site when the ask for a phone number. Last thing I want is to make easier for companies to track me. Not only that I think anonymity is important. Without you could also just as easily be threatened or harassed by people online. It cut both ways.
- phkahler 6y ago
  >> Not only that I think anonymity is important. Without you could also just as easily be threatened or harassed by people online. If someone threatens or harasses you online, and they are not anonymous you can take action. Like you say, both ways. You can always have sites that drop your identity. It's technically easier to drop information than to verify it.