4 ms·

I'm generally fairly hesitant about restricting 230 protection, but removing it for paid content, such as ads, makes a lot of sense to me.

sharemywin 6y ago
I think it's fair to sue to take stuff down. Although you should be able to sue to put stuff back up too
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
The failure though is the government isn't accounting for content next to ads. Ad companies are likely to keep user generated content that drives good ad revenue, even if it's also harmful. This is a start, but the solution is to revoke 230 entirely.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  Presumably this would lead to this site shutting down. Do you think that's an acceptable trade-off?
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    This. If you make a website liable for what someone posts, the sites will be much more heavy handed in their moderation approach and start taking down content with even a hint of a problem. Just look at YouTube with kids. They’ve taken such a heavy handed approach to content moderation regarding kids content simply because of laws like COPPA. But then videos not involving kids get swept up into the mess because the algorithm decided their video is about kids. Even simple 10 second clips of Spongebob get flagged because of this.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    First, your presumption is completely bull----. HN isn't ad supported. And every other class of business has normal liability, tech companies are the only business that claims to need magical immunity to lawsuits, and for some reason, people believe them. Second, if websites shutting down is the tradeoff for harmful websites being able to be sued, yes, absolutely that's acceptable. Websites that propagate mass harm and disinformation need not exist, and their replacements will be better.
    - novok 6y ago
      If section 230 disappears, it will likely mean HN will also disappear. Also HN is high end marketing as an input for Y Combinator's founder program, if there was no business of Y Combinator funding it, it would not exist.
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        On the contrary, I expect the death of harmful ad companies like Google and Facebook would cause an explosion of growth in the Internet startup space.
        novok 6y ago
        I doubt the US govt will break their top surveillance partners and 3/5 companies responsible for most of their GDP growth for the past decade in any meaningful way. After all of this saber rattling, they will still stand, with probably stronger positions because all the new compliance cost will shut out new entrants.
        ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        The US government's priorities changed when it became clear those companies could tamper with their election chances. All other concerns immediately became secondary. > all the new compliance cost We don't need new compliance costs, we just need the DOJ and FTC to enforce our existing laws and break Google and Facebook up. They're already in violation of the law.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Are you familiar with the case that originally prompted Section 230? It would be a pretty serious problem if hedge funds could sue your ISP for letting you say bad things about them. (In fact, without Section 230, ad companies could sue YCombinator for letting you make this very comment.)
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    I am familiar, and Section 230 was not the answer. And yes, normally anyone can sue anyone, I'm not sure why tech companies deserve to be magically immune to this.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Is there a better answer you have in mind? I don't think it's a question of tech companies deserving or not deserving immunity - the question is how we can avoid a locked-down sphere of Internet discourse where it's impossible for the average person to say bad things about powerful organizations.
      - bcrosby95 6y ago
        I guess theoretically, companies would either have unmoderated user content, or completely sanitized user content that goes under human review. Little to nothing inbetween. A big grey area seems like websites that give users tools to moderate content and let them handle it. Not sure what the courts would think of that.
- LocalH 6y ago
  I think section 230 should be modified to explicitly provide protections only for platforms that ban all moderation that isn't related to security or the most heinous of illegal content such as CSAM. Any platform that bans for ideological reasons should not be shielded from liability when they get it wrong. I think it is also important to advocate for decentralized, federated communication channels. Increase the total number of possible points of failure, and they absorb the load in a more graceful manner.

sharemywin 6y ago

I think it's fair to sue to take stuff down. Although you should be able to sue to put stuff back up too

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

The failure though is the government isn't accounting for content next to ads. Ad companies are likely to keep user generated content that drives good ad revenue, even if it's also harmful. This is a start, but the solution is to revoke 230 entirely.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
Presumably this would lead to this site shutting down. Do you think that's an acceptable trade-off?
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  This. If you make a website liable for what someone posts, the sites will be much more heavy handed in their moderation approach and start taking down content with even a hint of a problem. Just look at YouTube with kids. They’ve taken such a heavy handed approach to content moderation regarding kids content simply because of laws like COPPA. But then videos not involving kids get swept up into the mess because the algorithm decided their video is about kids. Even simple 10 second clips of Spongebob get flagged because of this.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  First, your presumption is completely bull----. HN isn't ad supported. And every other class of business has normal liability, tech companies are the only business that claims to need magical immunity to lawsuits, and for some reason, people believe them. Second, if websites shutting down is the tradeoff for harmful websites being able to be sued, yes, absolutely that's acceptable. Websites that propagate mass harm and disinformation need not exist, and their replacements will be better.
  - novok 6y ago
    If section 230 disappears, it will likely mean HN will also disappear. Also HN is high end marketing as an input for Y Combinator's founder program, if there was no business of Y Combinator funding it, it would not exist.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      On the contrary, I expect the death of harmful ad companies like Google and Facebook would cause an explosion of growth in the Internet startup space.
      - novok 6y ago
        I doubt the US govt will break their top surveillance partners and 3/5 companies responsible for most of their GDP growth for the past decade in any meaningful way. After all of this saber rattling, they will still stand, with probably stronger positions because all the new compliance cost will shut out new entrants.
        ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        The US government's priorities changed when it became clear those companies could tamper with their election chances. All other concerns immediately became secondary. > all the new compliance cost We don't need new compliance costs, we just need the DOJ and FTC to enforce our existing laws and break Google and Facebook up. They're already in violation of the law.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Are you familiar with the case that originally prompted Section 230? It would be a pretty serious problem if hedge funds could sue your ISP for letting you say bad things about them. (In fact, without Section 230, ad companies could sue YCombinator for letting you make this very comment.)
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  I am familiar, and Section 230 was not the answer. And yes, normally anyone can sue anyone, I'm not sure why tech companies deserve to be magically immune to this.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Is there a better answer you have in mind? I don't think it's a question of tech companies deserving or not deserving immunity - the question is how we can avoid a locked-down sphere of Internet discourse where it's impossible for the average person to say bad things about powerful organizations.
    - bcrosby95 6y ago
      I guess theoretically, companies would either have unmoderated user content, or completely sanitized user content that goes under human review. Little to nothing inbetween. A big grey area seems like websites that give users tools to moderate content and let them handle it. Not sure what the courts would think of that.
LocalH 6y ago
I think section 230 should be modified to explicitly provide protections only for platforms that ban all moderation that isn't related to security or the most heinous of illegal content such as CSAM. Any platform that bans for ideological reasons should not be shielded from liability when they get it wrong. I think it is also important to advocate for decentralized, federated communication channels. Increase the total number of possible points of failure, and they absorb the load in a more graceful manner.