4 ms·
Ironically, this law would give tech companies vastly more power to censor and police online speech. As soon as tech companies are made legally liable for any s
by whack 6y ago
Ironically, this law would give tech companies vastly more power to censor and police online speech. As soon as tech companies are made legally liable for any speech that occurs on their platform, they would be both legally and morally justified in using draconian measures to preemptively block activities that could expose them to liability. For example, banning all controversial hashtags, automatically banning anyone who promotes controversial hashtags, or deleting tweets/individuals that their algorithms have flagged as being problematic.
In all of these cases, Twitter and Facebook would argue that they don't have the manpower to quickly and thoroughly review every single interaction that occurs on their platform. And they don't have the luxury of being permissive in allowing free speech. And they would be right.
If you're afraid of online free speech being aggressively policed by tech companies, their customer-service reps, and their automated algorithms, then such proposals should absolutely scare you. You could very well see a 21st century where Mark Zuck becomes the next Rupert Murdoch.
- xpe 6y agoI don't think this is ironic. It seems to me the intention is to encourage tech companies to be more selective in what they allow. I do not agree with your claim that "they would be both legally and morally justified in using draconian measures". Here's why: 1. Morality is different from legality, especially in this context 2. Draconian means "excessively harsh and severe". I don't think the bill if passed would provide protections for companies that are "excessively harsh or severe". These companies still operate in a broader context that includes market forces, public perception, and internal leadership in addition to regulation.
- bastawhiz 6y agoThis is absolutely the truth. I've talked with attorneys about what this would mean for my side hustle (podcast hosting) and their advice is to have tools for doing exhaustive moderation ready to go. The risk of being sued for user content is large enough to be business-ending for startups of my size. I sincerely hope that this is just political theater that never manifests into law. Section 230 is a blessing to the modern internet which goes wildly unappreciated, and is terribly misunderstood by the folks who benefit from it most.
- xpe 6y agoNo, this may be your prediction of what may happen. Please don't abuse the term "absolutely", particularly with an uncertain prediction.
- xpe 6y agoLawyers tend to be risk averse, and this is for good reason. A good lawyer will probably help you think about negative consequences. In my opinion, a great lawyer will additionally discuss risks and the costs of mitigating them, particularly given a limited budget.
- coffeefirst 6y agoWithout 230, that's probably correct. But with the specific changes being described, I'm having a hard time understanding how it would affect a podcast hosting service. Can you elaborate?
- bastawhiz 6y agoIn the same way as any other publishing platform. Immunity under some subjective (or poorly defined) terms is as good as no immunity at all. How can I know what will lead to wrongful death? I would need to police every piece of uploaded content for anything that I feel could reasonably lead to that.