3 ms·

I love how this is 100% a liability issue and everyone jumps to the First Amendment like automatons. Twitter and Facebook are each gonna blow hundreds of millio

I love how this is 100% a liability issue and everyone jumps to the First Amendment like automatons. Twitter and Facebook are each gonna blow hundreds of millions of dollars dealing with litigation from the fallout of the other day. They have zero obligation to host insane seditious rhetoric or the people who have encouraged it.

giantg2 6y ago
Is it a liability issue? Section 230?
- MisterBastahrd 6y ago
  (2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1] Section 230 doesn't protect you from everything. It is a band aid. Specifically, it says that you have to show that you have tried to prevent malevolent content in good faith. You can't just let it sit there and fester on your servers and pretend that you're covered. Section 230 essentially requires moderation of content. They knew what was going on. They let it happen anyway. They are liable. They don't want to be liable again.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Specifically, it says that you have to show that you have tried to prevent malevolent content in good faith. No, it doesn't, for the type of liability for hosted content, rather than its removal/restriction, that it applies to at all. > You can't just let it sit there and fester on your servers and pretend that you're covered. Yes, you can. 230 has more than one area of protection. Two of them are: (1) You (as a service provider or another user) aren't liable as a publisher for user-generated content that you aren't the origin of. 47 USC Sec. 230(c)(1) (2) As a provider, you also aren't liable for good faith efforts to restrict access to offensive content or enable content providers the ability to restrict access to offensive content. 46 USC Sec 230(c)(2) But, notably, Section 230 doesn't apply to criminal liability at all, and there is a real risk of criminal liability under the law against material support for terrorism for knowingly providing any service that you know is supporting some of the acts that have occurred or which have been reported to be now being publicly planned on social media platforms.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Is it a liability issue? Yes, it's a criminal liability issue. > Section 230? Section 230 provides immunity from certain civil liability. It doesn't provide any immunity from criminal liability, such as that for providing “any property, tangible or intangible, or service [...] except medicine or religious materials” while “knowing [...] that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of” any of a wide variety of federal criminal statutes, several of which would apply to events like the Capitol attack or the follow-on already being planned on social media, “or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act” under 18 USC Sec 2339A (“Providing material support to terrorists”.) This creates a positive obligation to act on knowledge of the organization of such acts on your platform, that Section 230 cam’t immunize against.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    What criminal act? He hasn't been arrested or impeached. His words were quite vague. If we just start assuming people are guilty then I fear our system has failed. This is really an issue for the courts (in this case impeachment) to decide. It would possible apply to Facebook events, if those events have any description of violence.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I love how this is 100% a liability issue and everyone jumps to the First Amendment like automatons. Liability is government action, and is limited by the First Amendment. That’s why the US has much less defamation liability than many other countries with closely related legal systems; the Constitutional protection free speech and press prevents the government from imposing liability where other governments have.

giantg2 6y ago

Is it a liability issue? Section 230?

MisterBastahrd 6y ago
(2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1] Section 230 doesn't protect you from everything. It is a band aid. Specifically, it says that you have to show that you have tried to prevent malevolent content in good faith. You can't just let it sit there and fester on your servers and pretend that you're covered. Section 230 essentially requires moderation of content. They knew what was going on. They let it happen anyway. They are liable. They don't want to be liable again.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Specifically, it says that you have to show that you have tried to prevent malevolent content in good faith. No, it doesn't, for the type of liability for hosted content, rather than its removal/restriction, that it applies to at all. > You can't just let it sit there and fester on your servers and pretend that you're covered. Yes, you can. 230 has more than one area of protection. Two of them are: (1) You (as a service provider or another user) aren't liable as a publisher for user-generated content that you aren't the origin of. 47 USC Sec. 230(c)(1) (2) As a provider, you also aren't liable for good faith efforts to restrict access to offensive content or enable content providers the ability to restrict access to offensive content. 46 USC Sec 230(c)(2) But, notably, Section 230 doesn't apply to criminal liability at all, and there is a real risk of criminal liability under the law against material support for terrorism for knowingly providing any service that you know is supporting some of the acts that have occurred or which have been reported to be now being publicly planned on social media platforms.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Is it a liability issue? Yes, it's a criminal liability issue. > Section 230? Section 230 provides immunity from certain civil liability. It doesn't provide any immunity from criminal liability, such as that for providing “any property, tangible or intangible, or service [...] except medicine or religious materials” while “knowing [...] that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of” any of a wide variety of federal criminal statutes, several of which would apply to events like the Capitol attack or the follow-on already being planned on social media, “or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act” under 18 USC Sec 2339A (“Providing material support to terrorists”.) This creates a positive obligation to act on knowledge of the organization of such acts on your platform, that Section 230 cam’t immunize against.
- giantg2 6y ago
  What criminal act? He hasn't been arrested or impeached. His words were quite vague. If we just start assuming people are guilty then I fear our system has failed. This is really an issue for the courts (in this case impeachment) to decide. It would possible apply to Facebook events, if those events have any description of violence.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I love how this is 100% a liability issue and everyone jumps to the First Amendment like automatons. Liability is government action, and is limited by the First Amendment. That’s why the US has much less defamation liability than many other countries with closely related legal systems; the Constitutional protection free speech and press prevents the government from imposing liability where other governments have.