3 ms·

It sounds like you're really just mad because the big companies don't moderate evenly enough for you. > replacing it with something that requires a reasonable

by cujo 6y ago

It sounds like you're really just mad because the big companies don't moderate evenly enough for you. > replacing it with something that requires a reasonable level of moderation, or provides a little bit of protection for companies that have made a good attempt at moderation. That would be a much better incentive for companies than the incentive 230 currently provides. I'll bite. I think TW/FB have done a reasonable job of moderating. Where do you set the bar? Where should the politically appointed judge hearing the case set the bar? Your solution is just moving the problem directly into the sites of the political party in power.

parsimo2010 6y ago
> It sounds like you're really just mad because the big companies don't moderate evenly enough for you. You're actually not too far off. I'm mad that companies are protected unevenly relative to normal people, which allows them to moderate unevenly and have no risk of downside resulting from their decisions. A law which protects a company when they do no moderation, but sets no restrictions on who they can moderate is lopsided. My personal viewpoint is in favor of having some standard of moderation, but the inconsistency is frustrating. I lean towards moderation, but I think we ought to be choosing between the options of "some moderation standard/required" or "no moderation allowed," and not the current option which privatizes the gains and forces losses onto the public. If Facebook decides not to moderate a hate group, they get ad revenue from all that traffic. But if that hate group, which Facebook is enabling, organizes an event where they march through a city and beat someone up, then I think that person should be able to sue Facebook (as well as pressing criminal charges and suing the people that performed the beating). The person that got beaten up would still have to demonstrate to the court that Facebook played some role in enabling the beating, even without Section 230. So where would I set the bar? I would set it at the level that a company isn't at fault if their platform has the right kind or amount of moderation that the bad event that happened was unusual or couldn't have been expected. If someone gets hurt because Facebook didn't police an openly Nazi group, they should be liable. If someone gets hurt because Facebook has decent moderation procedures in place but the Nazi group was sneaky and posed as a sports fan club and used coded messages, then I think Facebook would have a pretty easy defense even without Section 230. And you make it seem like judges are wildly political and the legal system is unreliable. There are a few bad judges, but 99% of cases that would be brought in the absence of Section 230 are so openly shut that they would be settled before they went to court. And in the cases that went to court, most judges are good people and want to do the right thing, regardless of their political leanings. The political affiliation of a judge really only matters when an issue is close and tough to call. Let's not give wholesale protection to tech companies from all of the obvious and easily decidable cases where they should be held responsible just because we're worried about a few bad calls.
- cujo 6y ago
  > So where would I set the bar? I would set it at the level that a company isn't at fault if their platform has the right kind or amount of moderation that the bad event that happened was unusual or couldn't have been expected. If someone gets hurt because Facebook didn't police an openly Nazi group, they should be liable. If someone gets hurt because Facebook has decent moderation procedures in place but the Nazi group was sneaky and posed as a sports fan club and used coded messages, then I think Facebook would have a pretty easy defense even without Section 230. I like this idea in theory. How does this work if the platform promises no moderation? Is that allowed? I'm thinking of a mastodon-type setup where a setup can choose not to do any type of filtering/moderation.

by cujo 6y ago

parsimo2010 6y ago

> It sounds like you're really just mad because the big companies don't moderate evenly enough for you. You're actually not too far off. I'm mad that companies are protected unevenly relative to normal people, which allows them to moderate unevenly and have no risk of downside resulting from their decisions. A law which protects a company when they do no moderation, but sets no restrictions on who they can moderate is lopsided. My personal viewpoint is in favor of having some standard of moderation, but the inconsistency is frustrating. I lean towards moderation, but I think we ought to be choosing between the options of "some moderation standard/required" or "no moderation allowed," and not the current option which privatizes the gains and forces losses onto the public. If Facebook decides not to moderate a hate group, they get ad revenue from all that traffic. But if that hate group, which Facebook is enabling, organizes an event where they march through a city and beat someone up, then I think that person should be able to sue Facebook (as well as pressing criminal charges and suing the people that performed the beating). The person that got beaten up would still have to demonstrate to the court that Facebook played some role in enabling the beating, even without Section 230. So where would I set the bar? I would set it at the level that a company isn't at fault if their platform has the right kind or amount of moderation that the bad event that happened was unusual or couldn't have been expected. If someone gets hurt because Facebook didn't police an openly Nazi group, they should be liable. If someone gets hurt because Facebook has decent moderation procedures in place but the Nazi group was sneaky and posed as a sports fan club and used coded messages, then I think Facebook would have a pretty easy defense even without Section 230. And you make it seem like judges are wildly political and the legal system is unreliable. There are a few bad judges, but 99% of cases that would be brought in the absence of Section 230 are so openly shut that they would be settled before they went to court. And in the cases that went to court, most judges are good people and want to do the right thing, regardless of their political leanings. The political affiliation of a judge really only matters when an issue is close and tough to call. Let's not give wholesale protection to tech companies from all of the obvious and easily decidable cases where they should be held responsible just because we're worried about a few bad calls.

cujo 6y ago
> So where would I set the bar? I would set it at the level that a company isn't at fault if their platform has the right kind or amount of moderation that the bad event that happened was unusual or couldn't have been expected. If someone gets hurt because Facebook didn't police an openly Nazi group, they should be liable. If someone gets hurt because Facebook has decent moderation procedures in place but the Nazi group was sneaky and posed as a sports fan club and used coded messages, then I think Facebook would have a pretty easy defense even without Section 230. I like this idea in theory. How does this work if the platform promises no moderation? Is that allowed? I'm thinking of a mastodon-type setup where a setup can choose not to do any type of filtering/moderation.