6 ms·

North Dakota Bill Would Let Censored Citizens Sue Facebook, Twitter

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sbelskie 6y ago
"There's no question that this would target conduct immune under federal law—and, in fact, if [Section] 230 were repealed nobody could ever be liable under this law (since it only reaches immune conduct)," Cohen wrote. In other words, the North Dakota bill is "incredibly stupid," he wrote.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  This is a pretty biased take from that random person on Twitter that ArsTechnica is quoting (this is all sourced from just this person's tweets). The proposed bill has value in terms of gauging legislative support, inviting copycat bills, in terms of building momentum across states, and ultimately leading to a better piece of legislation that meaningfully protects citizens from big tech censorship. It doesn't have to be viable or "succeed" in the first iteration. You see this tactic (passing something that has no viability) all the time from legislators and activists that are left-leaning in states like California/Oregon/Washington, and now right-leaning states' politicians are adopting the same strategy as well.
  - beerandt 6y ago
    It also allows a separate route through the federal court system, except one with the potential to be state funded. To what ends? Idk- but I'd say interpretation of the "good-faith" aspect of section 230 is ripe for review.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
apple_innocent 6y ago
See also: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55678502 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55678502
redisman 6y ago
Why do people want to repeal 230? It would make any site with user generated content completely neutered and things like Parler or gab would be sued to oblivion immediately
- sircastor 6y ago
  I think it’s mostly been because they’ve been fed a lot false narrative about what section 230 is. It’s been circulating that 230 somehow is allowing companies like Twitter and Facebook to censor whom they wish, and that is resulting in some kind of repression of conservative viewpoints (in the US). I don’t think people (including those who have been pushing for it’s repeal) understand the consequences of its elimination.
  - toast0 6y ago
    Section 230 does allow companies to censor who they wish on their sites. Section 230 provides that sites have no liability for user content, and they have no liability for moderating user content, subject to some limited exceptions for certain types of prohibited content, or prohibited moderation. With existing case law, in my mind repealing section 230 without replacement would mean going back to the old standard, which was more or less don't moderate and have no liability for user content, or moderate perfectly, because you are liable for content your moderation missed. You would probably also have some liability to users whose content you moderated off, but I don't know that I've seen a case with those specifics.
    - devwastaken 6y ago
      Before 230 the standard was "let's hope we dont make anyone mad enough they want to come after us". All online locations where people can post content in any form have to be moderated. This idea of a "neutral platform" is imaginary.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      FOSTA/SESTA already impose moderation requirements regardless of what section 230 says.
olliej 6y ago
So it in effect makes it a crime to not host content from malicious individuals?
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  This isn't as strange conceptually as you make it sound. Power companies can't legally cut off electricity to consumers that they deem "malicious", even if they're violent actual neo-nazis or tankies, let alone the infinitely lower bar you're using. What's under discussion is whether "the new public square" of Twitter/Facebook/et al constitute the same manner of oligopolistically-provided service that everyone has a right to.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - olliej 6y ago
    Power companies (1) get paid by their users, and (2) are heavily - and sensibly - regulated utilities. They are understood to be companies that operate in a very different business environment from the majority of other businesses. That is what also gives them the ability to place their equipment on other people's private property. And remember that a power company can cut off power to people if they are intentionally attempting to disrupt the power system, or simply not paying.
    - wutbrodo 6y ago
      > are heavily - and sensibly - regulated utilities. They are understood to be companies that operate in a very different business environment from the majority of other businesses. Yes, this is what's under discussion. One side of the debate thinks that the big social media products are critical enough to societal (and especially political) discourse that access should be guaranteed through regulation. It's a rather radical claim, and not one I'm sure I agree with, but it's not self-inconsistent. > And remember that a power company can cut off power to people if they are intentionally attempting to disrupt the power system, or simply not paying. Yes, and FB/Twitter can ban people for plenty of reasons that no one considers particularly controversial or critical. As with the power companies, the claim is that doing so for expressing legal-but-unpopular political speech is not conducive to the health of civic discourse and thus democracy. > Power companies (1) get paid by their users I don't see what this has to do with anything.
ohiovr 6y ago
As if Eternal September wasn’t eternal enough.
ReaganFJones 6y ago
I believe this bill messes up in two ways: First, it engages in content-based discrimination. If passed, it'd face immediate First Amendment challenges. It's exceedingly hard to pass a law that discriminates based upon the content of speech. Second, it's trying to overwrite parts of Section 230 and seems, at least on its face, as blatantly violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. I don't see this going anywhere.
mr_toad 6y ago
Canter and Siegel would approve of this law.
JCharante 6y ago
It doesn't seem like this bill requires social networks to provide service to people in North Dakota, so due to the strength of the networking effect, if an inherently flawed law like this were passed I'd imagine that by IP blocking North Dakota users you could get the constituents to request their law makers to revert the bill immediately. There's no market for a social network just for people in North Dakota, so North Dakota doesn't really have any leverage in situations like this.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

"There's no question that this would target conduct immune under federal law—and, in fact, if [Section] 230 were repealed nobody could ever be liable under this law (since it only reaches immune conduct)," Cohen wrote. In other words, the North Dakota bill is "incredibly stupid," he wrote.

throwawaysea 6y ago
This is a pretty biased take from that random person on Twitter that ArsTechnica is quoting (this is all sourced from just this person's tweets). The proposed bill has value in terms of gauging legislative support, inviting copycat bills, in terms of building momentum across states, and ultimately leading to a better piece of legislation that meaningfully protects citizens from big tech censorship. It doesn't have to be viable or "succeed" in the first iteration. You see this tactic (passing something that has no viability) all the time from legislators and activists that are left-leaning in states like California/Oregon/Washington, and now right-leaning states' politicians are adopting the same strategy as well.
- beerandt 6y ago
  It also allows a separate route through the federal court system, except one with the potential to be state funded. To what ends? Idk- but I'd say interpretation of the "good-faith" aspect of section 230 is ripe for review.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

apple_innocent 6y ago

See also: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55678502 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55678502

redisman 6y ago

Why do people want to repeal 230? It would make any site with user generated content completely neutered and things like Parler or gab would be sued to oblivion immediately

sircastor 6y ago
I think it’s mostly been because they’ve been fed a lot false narrative about what section 230 is. It’s been circulating that 230 somehow is allowing companies like Twitter and Facebook to censor whom they wish, and that is resulting in some kind of repression of conservative viewpoints (in the US). I don’t think people (including those who have been pushing for it’s repeal) understand the consequences of its elimination.
- toast0 6y ago
  Section 230 does allow companies to censor who they wish on their sites. Section 230 provides that sites have no liability for user content, and they have no liability for moderating user content, subject to some limited exceptions for certain types of prohibited content, or prohibited moderation. With existing case law, in my mind repealing section 230 without replacement would mean going back to the old standard, which was more or less don't moderate and have no liability for user content, or moderate perfectly, because you are liable for content your moderation missed. You would probably also have some liability to users whose content you moderated off, but I don't know that I've seen a case with those specifics.
  - devwastaken 6y ago
    Before 230 the standard was "let's hope we dont make anyone mad enough they want to come after us". All online locations where people can post content in any form have to be moderated. This idea of a "neutral platform" is imaginary.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    FOSTA/SESTA already impose moderation requirements regardless of what section 230 says.

olliej 6y ago

So it in effect makes it a crime to not host content from malicious individuals?

wutbrodo 6y ago
This isn't as strange conceptually as you make it sound. Power companies can't legally cut off electricity to consumers that they deem "malicious", even if they're violent actual neo-nazis or tankies, let alone the infinitely lower bar you're using. What's under discussion is whether "the new public square" of Twitter/Facebook/et al constitute the same manner of oligopolistically-provided service that everyone has a right to.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- olliej 6y ago
  Power companies (1) get paid by their users, and (2) are heavily - and sensibly - regulated utilities. They are understood to be companies that operate in a very different business environment from the majority of other businesses. That is what also gives them the ability to place their equipment on other people's private property. And remember that a power company can cut off power to people if they are intentionally attempting to disrupt the power system, or simply not paying.
  - wutbrodo 6y ago
    > are heavily - and sensibly - regulated utilities. They are understood to be companies that operate in a very different business environment from the majority of other businesses. Yes, this is what's under discussion. One side of the debate thinks that the big social media products are critical enough to societal (and especially political) discourse that access should be guaranteed through regulation. It's a rather radical claim, and not one I'm sure I agree with, but it's not self-inconsistent. > And remember that a power company can cut off power to people if they are intentionally attempting to disrupt the power system, or simply not paying. Yes, and FB/Twitter can ban people for plenty of reasons that no one considers particularly controversial or critical. As with the power companies, the claim is that doing so for expressing legal-but-unpopular political speech is not conducive to the health of civic discourse and thus democracy. > Power companies (1) get paid by their users I don't see what this has to do with anything.

ohiovr 6y ago

As if Eternal September wasn’t eternal enough.

ReaganFJones 6y ago

I believe this bill messes up in two ways: First, it engages in content-based discrimination. If passed, it'd face immediate First Amendment challenges. It's exceedingly hard to pass a law that discriminates based upon the content of speech. Second, it's trying to overwrite parts of Section 230 and seems, at least on its face, as blatantly violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. I don't see this going anywhere.

mr_toad 6y ago

Canter and Siegel would approve of this law.

JCharante 6y ago

It doesn't seem like this bill requires social networks to provide service to people in North Dakota, so due to the strength of the networking effect, if an inherently flawed law like this were passed I'd imagine that by IP blocking North Dakota users you could get the constituents to request their law makers to revert the bill immediately. There's no market for a social network just for people in North Dakota, so North Dakota doesn't really have any leverage in situations like this.