4 ms·

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]

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]