3 ms·

This is a great summary of what the law's function is. To address those trying to repeal it: • Some people think that if 230 was repealed, websites would mode

This is a great summary of what the law's function is. To address those trying to repeal it: • Some people think that if 230 was repealed, websites would moderate less. That's false. Because of the liability for users' posts, big websites would be forced to moderate more. And small websites would shut down out of fear of lawsuits. • Some people think that 230 must be repealed because websites are moderating too much. Well, the great thing about 230 is you can create your own websites. If you want to make your own free-speech forum and watch it be filled with far-right insurrectionists like all the other ones, you can, and you won't assume much liability for it. On the other hand, if 230 was repealed, you would not have this option, and the big tech companies you don't like would censor your friends for the same reasons they do today. I don't think everyone using Twitter and Facebook is good but this can't be solved by making it hard to run small forums. I also think it's dangerous to try to force people to run their forums with “fair” moderation. Free speech is important as a right to stop the state using violence against you. Being kicked out of a private group because you're disruptive, mean or faked your speedrunning scores, is on the other hand no great injustice that the law should interfere with.

PeterisP 6y ago
IMHO "And small websites would shut down out of fear of lawsuits" is misleading - it would be more appropriate to say "And small websites would refuse all user-generated content out of fear of lawsuits". They would still operate, but without the immunity the only safe way of moderation is to either have very strict moderation that ensures that anything even remotely questionable can't be posted; or (if you can't afford to have high quality manual moderation) simply not allow users to post anything at all.
- dd36 6y ago
  I think the legal defense would be whether the site acted reasonably and liability would be difficult to establish without harm. If people use your site to coordinate doxxing someone and you don’t take reasonable actions to prevent, stop or legally identify the users behind it, then you’re going to have a tough time getting out of liability. AFAIK doxxing isn’t illegal but harassment can be. Side note: I wonder what the new requirements that beneficial owners of legal entities be disclosed will do to 4chan, 8chan, etc.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    If there is harm, then without section 230 "acting reasonably" is not a legal defence - you (as the website/business/service allowing user-generated content) will be targeted by lawsuits even if you act reasonably simply because may be easier to extract monetary compensation from you than from a random teenager who actually posted the harassing content. Even if you identify that poster and ban them, that does not undo the harm and liability, so you'd be the target of expensive lawsuits. You would likely have grounds for a counterclaim to that user to compensate you for the losses, but that won't help you much, as your costs would be the total claim of the harassment + lawsuit cost, and your compensation would be limited to what you can recover before the user files bankruptcy.
    - dd36 6y ago
      Have any of the Sandy Hook parents sued a platform on this basis? Seems like Reddit would be at great risk.
      - PeterisP 6y ago
        There's no grounds for them to sue a platform because of the immunity granted by Section 230 which was passed 16 years before the events of Sandy Hook as part of Communications Decency Act of 1996. The above comment was about a hypothetical situation if that immunity was repealed - then we absolutely should expect every platform to be sued into ground unless (and even if) they censor everything.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Without Section 230, who is going to host these small websites and why would they take on the risk of having one of the sites' owners posting something illegal?

PeterisP 6y ago

IMHO "And small websites would shut down out of fear of lawsuits" is misleading - it would be more appropriate to say "And small websites would refuse all user-generated content out of fear of lawsuits". They would still operate, but without the immunity the only safe way of moderation is to either have very strict moderation that ensures that anything even remotely questionable can't be posted; or (if you can't afford to have high quality manual moderation) simply not allow users to post anything at all.

dd36 6y ago
I think the legal defense would be whether the site acted reasonably and liability would be difficult to establish without harm. If people use your site to coordinate doxxing someone and you don’t take reasonable actions to prevent, stop or legally identify the users behind it, then you’re going to have a tough time getting out of liability. AFAIK doxxing isn’t illegal but harassment can be. Side note: I wonder what the new requirements that beneficial owners of legal entities be disclosed will do to 4chan, 8chan, etc.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  If there is harm, then without section 230 "acting reasonably" is not a legal defence - you (as the website/business/service allowing user-generated content) will be targeted by lawsuits even if you act reasonably simply because may be easier to extract monetary compensation from you than from a random teenager who actually posted the harassing content. Even if you identify that poster and ban them, that does not undo the harm and liability, so you'd be the target of expensive lawsuits. You would likely have grounds for a counterclaim to that user to compensate you for the losses, but that won't help you much, as your costs would be the total claim of the harassment + lawsuit cost, and your compensation would be limited to what you can recover before the user files bankruptcy.
  - dd36 6y ago
    Have any of the Sandy Hook parents sued a platform on this basis? Seems like Reddit would be at great risk.
    - PeterisP 6y ago
      There's no grounds for them to sue a platform because of the immunity granted by Section 230 which was passed 16 years before the events of Sandy Hook as part of Communications Decency Act of 1996. The above comment was about a hypothetical situation if that immunity was repealed - then we absolutely should expect every platform to be sued into ground unless (and even if) they censor everything.
heavyset_go 6y ago
Without Section 230, who is going to host these small websites and why would they take on the risk of having one of the sites' owners posting something illegal?