6 ms·

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

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.
  - np_tedious 6y ago
    Yes this is about right. 230 allows moderation, but does not obligate it. Pretty much leaves full discretion to the platform and moderating one thing is not a commitment to moderate anything else. One is the key examples that highlighted the need for this was Jordan "Wolf of Wall Street" Belfour's company suing Prodigy for allowing users to talk negatively about it on message boards.... and winning! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Pr...
  - spacemanmatt 6y ago
    I feel like it's silly to not to carve out legal space for social media to be something other than a common carrier.
apple_innocent 6y ago
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/after-capitol-insurrection-and-fallout-it-is-time-for-new-laws-for-social-media-11610829102?link=MW_latest_news https://www.marketwatch.com/story/after-capitol-insurrection...
477rr7rduudh 6y ago
I like the idea myself. Either everybody gets free speech or nobody does, the law can be amended to force accommodation of unpopular speech or it can be torn down so that everyone is equally silenced. I'm well passed letting millionaire sjw children do whatever they want.
- devwastaken 6y ago
  You have freedom of speech. Make your own platform. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of social and business repercussions by others. You don't get to use a private companies business to forcefully host your content. Repealing 230 means you don't get an opinion on the net anymore. The threat of legal repercussions are a lot more censoring than twitter. Content will still be made by companies and they'll still continue whatever information manipulation they're up to. Perhaps it's not the 'sjw children'. Maybe it's that your position is wrong and others arent going to put up with it. There's social repercussions the same as anywhere else.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    "Make your own platform." That worked well for Parler and Gab, right? Let's be honest, the people who are pressuring big tech companies and others to deplatform and censor their political adversaries are doing so because they want to deny any power to those they disagree with. It won't stop with social media companies, because then they go to the app store vendors. It won't stop with app store vendors because then they go to the hosting providers. And from there it will undoubtedly go to backbone carriers. And ultimately to power utilities. And they'll be denied payment processing and other financial services. At some point, this line of thinking will culminate in jailing dissidents and denying them basic services like public transportation. Wait that's already happening, with transit unions asking to create no ride lists (https://www.cato.org/blog/transit-unions-dhs-give-america-no-ride-list https://www.cato.org/blog/transit-unions-dhs-give-america-no...). And the supporters of such policies actually feel they hold the moral high ground to criticize the CCP for social credit scores. I also don't get why people keep claiming "you don't get to do X with a private business". We regulate private business all the time. If you disagree, then lift all the COVID restrictions and let every business open up. Or remove regulations from existing utilities, from airlines, from financial services, etc. Or let a private business refuse to bake a cake. Otherwise, drop this trope because it is trite and unhelpful. Ultimately the reason why the "private company" argument does not work is because there is no real choice or competition at all for the tech companies. First, social media companies have little competition due to the moats of their network effects. Second, to the extent there is competition (say between Apple and Google's app stores/mobile phone platforms), there is indirect collusion because these companies all exist in Silicon Valley and reflect the political culture of their headquarters - which is why they make the same decisions on the same day. Third, Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and likely others are way too big and in a sane world would need to be broken up on anti-trust grounds. Fourth, Facebook and Twitter are the public's digital town square. The mere technicality of them being private is a poor excuse for recognizing their role as a public utility. They should be regulated to carry all speech that is not explicitly illegal.
jerkstate 6y ago
“Repeal section 230” is a rallying cry kind of like “defund the police” - it’s not the desired end state, but a statement that the status quo is unacceptable and pointing to a major reason why. It’s just another example of sound bite politics.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- conistonwater 6y ago
  I do not think this is really true, the proposal published by Bill Barr's DOJ did not call it a repeal but if you examine the actual legal contents of it it wasn't a reform at all [1]. > On the whole, the Justice Department initiative is worse than an outright repeal of Section 230. It invites internet firms to chase an increasingly elusive quarry of immunity for third-party content while exposing them to a wider range of legal liability. To quote President Trump, REPEAL SECTION 230!!! [2]. It's not really called sound bite politics if somebody consistently keeps saying something and also tries to do something about it. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/trumps-section-230-reform-is-repudiation-in-disguise/ https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/trumps-section-230-refo... [2] https://www.thetrumparchive.com/?searchbox=%22section+230%22 https://www.thetrumparchive.com/?searchbox=%22section+230%22
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > “Repeal section 230” is a rallying cry kind of like “defund the police” - it’s not the desired end state Well, neither states an end state, only an action, but “defund the police” is both exact and literal as to what is sought, so if you are saying “repeal section 230” is not, then the comparison is poorly chosen.
esyir 6y ago
Because if they want to censor, I want to make them liable for their editorializing.
- devwastaken 6y ago
  Without 230 you wouldn't be able to comment anywhere on the net. Where all content has to be reviewed and accepted. I don't see how this is going to reduce censorship. If anything it helps big content companies silence opinion.
  - shi314 6y ago
    Without 230, Businesses would use decentralised tech to process comments if they feel comments are integral part of their business model.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      They would still be legally liable for that content, even if it were decentralized.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      No, without 230 businesses just wouldn't have business models where UGC without pre-publication editorial review was part of their business model because there would be no way to make such a business model viable in the face of liability. General liability law was evolving in ways which were starting to make that clear at the time the Communications Decency Act was being drafted, which is why Section 230, a protection that was seen as essential to prevent the imminent destruction of the participatory net, was included in the CDA as a major tool to get political support for supporting the state censorship that made up the rest of the CDA. (Perhaps ironically, Section 230 is the only operative part of the CDA not struck down as unconstitutional.)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 6y ago
Which people? The informed political factions that want to repeal, reform, or revise 230 have different goals from each other (and, on some cases, different goals than the ones they use to sell the idea to their followers.)

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.
- np_tedious 6y ago
  Yes this is about right. 230 allows moderation, but does not obligate it. Pretty much leaves full discretion to the platform and moderating one thing is not a commitment to moderate anything else. One is the key examples that highlighted the need for this was Jordan "Wolf of Wall Street" Belfour's company suing Prodigy for allowing users to talk negatively about it on message boards.... and winning! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Pr...
- spacemanmatt 6y ago
  I feel like it's silly to not to carve out legal space for social media to be something other than a common carrier.

apple_innocent 6y ago

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/after-capitol-insurrection-and-fallout-it-is-time-for-new-laws-for-social-media-11610829102?link=MW_latest_news https://www.marketwatch.com/story/after-capitol-insurrection...

477rr7rduudh 6y ago

I like the idea myself. Either everybody gets free speech or nobody does, the law can be amended to force accommodation of unpopular speech or it can be torn down so that everyone is equally silenced. I'm well passed letting millionaire sjw children do whatever they want.

devwastaken 6y ago
You have freedom of speech. Make your own platform. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of social and business repercussions by others. You don't get to use a private companies business to forcefully host your content. Repealing 230 means you don't get an opinion on the net anymore. The threat of legal repercussions are a lot more censoring than twitter. Content will still be made by companies and they'll still continue whatever information manipulation they're up to. Perhaps it's not the 'sjw children'. Maybe it's that your position is wrong and others arent going to put up with it. There's social repercussions the same as anywhere else.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  "Make your own platform." That worked well for Parler and Gab, right? Let's be honest, the people who are pressuring big tech companies and others to deplatform and censor their political adversaries are doing so because they want to deny any power to those they disagree with. It won't stop with social media companies, because then they go to the app store vendors. It won't stop with app store vendors because then they go to the hosting providers. And from there it will undoubtedly go to backbone carriers. And ultimately to power utilities. And they'll be denied payment processing and other financial services. At some point, this line of thinking will culminate in jailing dissidents and denying them basic services like public transportation. Wait that's already happening, with transit unions asking to create no ride lists (https://www.cato.org/blog/transit-unions-dhs-give-america-no-ride-list https://www.cato.org/blog/transit-unions-dhs-give-america-no...). And the supporters of such policies actually feel they hold the moral high ground to criticize the CCP for social credit scores. I also don't get why people keep claiming "you don't get to do X with a private business". We regulate private business all the time. If you disagree, then lift all the COVID restrictions and let every business open up. Or remove regulations from existing utilities, from airlines, from financial services, etc. Or let a private business refuse to bake a cake. Otherwise, drop this trope because it is trite and unhelpful. Ultimately the reason why the "private company" argument does not work is because there is no real choice or competition at all for the tech companies. First, social media companies have little competition due to the moats of their network effects. Second, to the extent there is competition (say between Apple and Google's app stores/mobile phone platforms), there is indirect collusion because these companies all exist in Silicon Valley and reflect the political culture of their headquarters - which is why they make the same decisions on the same day. Third, Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and likely others are way too big and in a sane world would need to be broken up on anti-trust grounds. Fourth, Facebook and Twitter are the public's digital town square. The mere technicality of them being private is a poor excuse for recognizing their role as a public utility. They should be regulated to carry all speech that is not explicitly illegal.

jerkstate 6y ago

“Repeal section 230” is a rallying cry kind of like “defund the police” - it’s not the desired end state, but a statement that the status quo is unacceptable and pointing to a major reason why. It’s just another example of sound bite politics.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
conistonwater 6y ago
I do not think this is really true, the proposal published by Bill Barr's DOJ did not call it a repeal but if you examine the actual legal contents of it it wasn't a reform at all [1]. > On the whole, the Justice Department initiative is worse than an outright repeal of Section 230. It invites internet firms to chase an increasingly elusive quarry of immunity for third-party content while exposing them to a wider range of legal liability. To quote President Trump, REPEAL SECTION 230!!! [2]. It's not really called sound bite politics if somebody consistently keeps saying something and also tries to do something about it. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/trumps-section-230-reform-is-repudiation-in-disguise/ https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/trumps-section-230-refo... [2] https://www.thetrumparchive.com/?searchbox=%22section+230%22 https://www.thetrumparchive.com/?searchbox=%22section+230%22
dragonwriter 6y ago
> “Repeal section 230” is a rallying cry kind of like “defund the police” - it’s not the desired end state Well, neither states an end state, only an action, but “defund the police” is both exact and literal as to what is sought, so if you are saying “repeal section 230” is not, then the comparison is poorly chosen.

esyir 6y ago

Because if they want to censor, I want to make them liable for their editorializing.

devwastaken 6y ago
Without 230 you wouldn't be able to comment anywhere on the net. Where all content has to be reviewed and accepted. I don't see how this is going to reduce censorship. If anything it helps big content companies silence opinion.
- shi314 6y ago
  Without 230, Businesses would use decentralised tech to process comments if they feel comments are integral part of their business model.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    They would still be legally liable for that content, even if it were decentralized.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    No, without 230 businesses just wouldn't have business models where UGC without pre-publication editorial review was part of their business model because there would be no way to make such a business model viable in the face of liability. General liability law was evolving in ways which were starting to make that clear at the time the Communications Decency Act was being drafted, which is why Section 230, a protection that was seen as essential to prevent the imminent destruction of the participatory net, was included in the CDA as a major tool to get political support for supporting the state censorship that made up the rest of the CDA. (Perhaps ironically, Section 230 is the only operative part of the CDA not struck down as unconstitutional.)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 6y ago

Which people? The informed political factions that want to repeal, reform, or revise 230 have different goals from each other (and, on some cases, different goals than the ones they use to sell the idea to their followers.)