5 ms·

Actually quite an awesome read here. But also kind of funny that the resource does a great job explaining what 230 is not — while a terrible job of what it is.

Actually quite an awesome read here. But also kind of funny that the resource does a great job explaining what 230 is not — while a terrible job of what it is. At this point, I have no idea what Section 230 is. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t really care for the details of this. Hell, I barely understand how a bill is actually turned into law. Though, I do know that the POTUS vs Twitter showdown today has put a bittersweet taste in my mouth. I hope they pass a new law whatever it is. I would even bet Jack is too to take the pressure off. He’s extremely measured every time I hear him speak, and I would bet he secretly wants a law explicitly forbidding him from being content cop.

kennywinker 6y ago
What law would that be? Internet service providers must provide their service to everyone? Great, now it’s illegal to kick people off your minecraft server and the new york times MUST publish my op-ed. Twitter gave orange-julius cesar a platform, they can take it away.
- lovecg 6y ago
  There’s a general anxiety of a big company taking a way a big chunk of your life on a whim. It’s not fun to be banned by Google or Amazon. I’m not doing anything wrong to get banned, but that seems backwards somehow. (“don’t break the law and you have nothing to worry about” gives off the same creepy vibe). It’s a similar feeling when driving next to cop while doing nothing wrong or dealing with a government bureaucracy. They have all (or a lot) of the power and decision making is never perfect. So perhaps this is an argument for stronger antitrust or whatever. More competition would reduce this anxiety for the regular person.
  - rubatuga 6y ago
    This is probably not the response you wanted, but I think it's an argument for decentralized and federated services, along with self-hosting.
    - lovecg 6y ago
      I admittedly don’t know much about this space, but there must be a reason these solutions didn’t take off (I don’t know whether it’s fundamental scaling issues, lack of a centralized group driving product design, or just lack of user interest as existing solutions are “good enough” + network effects). But if the market is failing to select for these approaches it seems that the only way forward is to shape the market rules somewhat. Outright banning everything centralized seems heavy-handed to me, so it might be that the only practical outcome is less centralization we have now, but not none.
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        Decentralized solutions are hard, harder to monetize, complicated for users to deploy. Historically users who don't care about their privacy much, are incapable of hosting themselves because their isp sucks and they are technically illiterate, and have little chance of being banned.
  - ultrarunner 6y ago
    Driving in front of a cop is worrisome because of the imbalance of force. Section 230 specifically bars certain force from being applied— it doesn't add more to the equation. Repealing it would, in practice, require Google and Amazon to scrutinize the content they host for you. It would be like if Target could be sued for the conversation you're having with a friend while shopping. Like if you could be sued for someone else's conduct on the sidewalk in front of your house (for the sake of argument, "on your property, without protection"). The only outcome that can invite is more frequent "driving in front of a cop" moments, because companies would need their own cops, and need them everywhere.
- h_anna_h 6y ago
  Isn't it already illegal to kick people off your minecraft server if it is due certain characteristics (such as sexuality)?
  - kennywinker 6y ago
    I am not a lawyer, but I think it depends on if a minecraft server is the kind of space covered by non discrimination laws - seems a bit dubious to me as it feels more like a community gathering place (where you can have e.g. women-only spaces), but i suspect its not been tested ever.
npunt 6y ago
> I hope they pass a new law whatever it is. To mix metaphors, blank checks are rarely balanced. Be very very careful what you wish for here.
toast0 6y ago
Section 230 protects websites from liability arising from content that a user created. It also protects users from liability arising from content another user created that they shared. It protects sites from liability from moderating or not moderating content. Some liabilities are not exempted. Federal criminal law, intellectual property, privacy, and sex trafficing law are not affected. Its effect on state law is complex (as described in the article).
TwoBit 6y ago
He says multiple times what it is, doesn't he? It prevents services and users from being held responsible for content authored by others. And thus it was a reversal of the original Prodigy ruling.

kennywinker 6y ago

What law would that be? Internet service providers must provide their service to everyone? Great, now it’s illegal to kick people off your minecraft server and the new york times MUST publish my op-ed. Twitter gave orange-julius cesar a platform, they can take it away.

lovecg 6y ago
There’s a general anxiety of a big company taking a way a big chunk of your life on a whim. It’s not fun to be banned by Google or Amazon. I’m not doing anything wrong to get banned, but that seems backwards somehow. (“don’t break the law and you have nothing to worry about” gives off the same creepy vibe). It’s a similar feeling when driving next to cop while doing nothing wrong or dealing with a government bureaucracy. They have all (or a lot) of the power and decision making is never perfect. So perhaps this is an argument for stronger antitrust or whatever. More competition would reduce this anxiety for the regular person.
- rubatuga 6y ago
  This is probably not the response you wanted, but I think it's an argument for decentralized and federated services, along with self-hosting.
  - lovecg 6y ago
    I admittedly don’t know much about this space, but there must be a reason these solutions didn’t take off (I don’t know whether it’s fundamental scaling issues, lack of a centralized group driving product design, or just lack of user interest as existing solutions are “good enough” + network effects). But if the market is failing to select for these approaches it seems that the only way forward is to shape the market rules somewhat. Outright banning everything centralized seems heavy-handed to me, so it might be that the only practical outcome is less centralization we have now, but not none.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      Decentralized solutions are hard, harder to monetize, complicated for users to deploy. Historically users who don't care about their privacy much, are incapable of hosting themselves because their isp sucks and they are technically illiterate, and have little chance of being banned.
- ultrarunner 6y ago
  Driving in front of a cop is worrisome because of the imbalance of force. Section 230 specifically bars certain force from being applied— it doesn't add more to the equation. Repealing it would, in practice, require Google and Amazon to scrutinize the content they host for you. It would be like if Target could be sued for the conversation you're having with a friend while shopping. Like if you could be sued for someone else's conduct on the sidewalk in front of your house (for the sake of argument, "on your property, without protection"). The only outcome that can invite is more frequent "driving in front of a cop" moments, because companies would need their own cops, and need them everywhere.
h_anna_h 6y ago
Isn't it already illegal to kick people off your minecraft server if it is due certain characteristics (such as sexuality)?
- kennywinker 6y ago
  I am not a lawyer, but I think it depends on if a minecraft server is the kind of space covered by non discrimination laws - seems a bit dubious to me as it feels more like a community gathering place (where you can have e.g. women-only spaces), but i suspect its not been tested ever.

npunt 6y ago

> I hope they pass a new law whatever it is. To mix metaphors, blank checks are rarely balanced. Be very very careful what you wish for here.

toast0 6y ago

Section 230 protects websites from liability arising from content that a user created. It also protects users from liability arising from content another user created that they shared. It protects sites from liability from moderating or not moderating content. Some liabilities are not exempted. Federal criminal law, intellectual property, privacy, and sex trafficing law are not affected. Its effect on state law is complex (as described in the article).

TwoBit 6y ago

He says multiple times what it is, doesn't he? It prevents services and users from being held responsible for content authored by others. And thus it was a reversal of the original Prodigy ruling.