3 ms·

I'm not 100% sure if section 230 should protect those platforms providing anonymous speech. While anonymous speech is important for free speech purposes, secti

I'm not 100% sure if section 230 should protect those platforms providing anonymous speech. While anonymous speech is important for free speech purposes, section 230 is about shifting the liability of the speech from the "publisher" (facebook/twitter, using air quotes as publisher isn't really accurate) to the writer. However, if these platforms are providing anonymous speech, then it makes it much more difficult to actually go after the writer. perhaps one could argue that by providing such a speed bump in the process of figuring out who the writer is facebook/twitter are aiding and abetting said speech and hence have liability from it. And that service providers over a certain size either cannot allow anonymous speech at all, or at best have serious KYC rules with straight forward demasking. I don't like where my thought experiment leads, but I really dont have a good answer for this.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
This argument isn’t wholly unreasonable. But it would lead, in practical terms, simply to the abolition of anonymous and pseudonymous accounts on social media. I could live with that, but I get the feeling those calling for Sec 230 abolition want something entirely different. I’m also not entirely sure what sort of “liability” people are talking about. In the US, there is very little liability for any sort of speech. Insults, no matter how gross and objectionable, are generally protected as simply being subjective opinions, for example. So is blatant racism. Only statements of facts that are false, made knowingly and with malicious intent, are actionable. I believe very little of what people object to on social media actually falls under that definition.
- compsciphd 6y ago
  so you're right, but part of the problem is that there is no personal consequence to this anonymous speech. It's also impossible to distinguish between "fake/non verified" users and "real/verified" users on a mass scale. So, I modify my proposal to argue that if we don't want to get rid of anonymous/pseudononymous accounts, we have to take steps to enable users to really devalue the anonymous speech and not put it on the same level as non anonymous speech.
xoa 6y ago
So, is "compsciphd" your family name or your given name? Have you really stopped to think these things through? You and every single other person posting here, on Hacker News, with pseudonyms including one time throwaway accounts, HN a "platform providing anonymous speech", do understand that 230 makes this place possible right? Right? Are you suggesting dang and co should not be allowed to moderate ever again without Y Combinator becoming legally liable for every random thing here? That we should all have to hand over government ID to post here? This is fucking nuts. The good answer is for people to stop giving so much credence to anonymous speech without thorough analysis, or at most to have a more streamlined process to get it taken down if it's not defended.
- compsciphd 6y ago
  so lets take a related solution that combines both of what we said. The ability for everyone to get the equivalent of a blue check mark, i.e. this person has been verified as "real", there only exists one independent account associated with said "real" person (but perhaps can have multiple non independent accounts, that all are publicly associated with one identity. an example would be someone who has a public identity and a friends and family identity on social media, they would presumably tie their private identity to their public identity and both could be marked as "real"). then one can easily distinguish people who are "real" and those which are anonymous. Might also help with bot issues on these networks. also my identity here isn't particularly anonymous. I've linked to my work often enough that anyone who cares would know who I am.
vharuck 6y ago
The platform may publicly provide a forum for anonymous speech, but that doesn't mean it is anonymous. One of the most famous forums for anonymous speech is 4chan's "Random" forum, and even there prosecution was possible against a user. The site owner cooperated with investigators. This wasn't a surprise to any long-time users, because everyone knows a site that doesn't cooperate in criminal investigations is not long for this world. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/fbi/turns-out-4chan-not-lawless-it-seems http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/fbi/turns-out-4chan-not-...
- compsciphd 6y ago
  in legal cases, its possible. But it removes any consequence for the anonymous speech that is not legally actionable. While there's value to that type of speech, it should also be devalued by others. So, see what I wrote above as a modification of the proposal. To encourage all users to be verifiable, for end users to be easily able to identify non verified users, and hence to be able to devalue those opinions.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

This argument isn’t wholly unreasonable. But it would lead, in practical terms, simply to the abolition of anonymous and pseudonymous accounts on social media. I could live with that, but I get the feeling those calling for Sec 230 abolition want something entirely different. I’m also not entirely sure what sort of “liability” people are talking about. In the US, there is very little liability for any sort of speech. Insults, no matter how gross and objectionable, are generally protected as simply being subjective opinions, for example. So is blatant racism. Only statements of facts that are false, made knowingly and with malicious intent, are actionable. I believe very little of what people object to on social media actually falls under that definition.

compsciphd 6y ago
so you're right, but part of the problem is that there is no personal consequence to this anonymous speech. It's also impossible to distinguish between "fake/non verified" users and "real/verified" users on a mass scale. So, I modify my proposal to argue that if we don't want to get rid of anonymous/pseudononymous accounts, we have to take steps to enable users to really devalue the anonymous speech and not put it on the same level as non anonymous speech.

xoa 6y ago

So, is "compsciphd" your family name or your given name? Have you really stopped to think these things through? You and every single other person posting here, on Hacker News, with pseudonyms including one time throwaway accounts, HN a "platform providing anonymous speech", do understand that 230 makes this place possible right? Right? Are you suggesting dang and co should not be allowed to moderate ever again without Y Combinator becoming legally liable for every random thing here? That we should all have to hand over government ID to post here? This is fucking nuts. The good answer is for people to stop giving so much credence to anonymous speech without thorough analysis, or at most to have a more streamlined process to get it taken down if it's not defended.

compsciphd 6y ago
so lets take a related solution that combines both of what we said. The ability for everyone to get the equivalent of a blue check mark, i.e. this person has been verified as "real", there only exists one independent account associated with said "real" person (but perhaps can have multiple non independent accounts, that all are publicly associated with one identity. an example would be someone who has a public identity and a friends and family identity on social media, they would presumably tie their private identity to their public identity and both could be marked as "real"). then one can easily distinguish people who are "real" and those which are anonymous. Might also help with bot issues on these networks. also my identity here isn't particularly anonymous. I've linked to my work often enough that anyone who cares would know who I am.

vharuck 6y ago

The platform may publicly provide a forum for anonymous speech, but that doesn't mean it is anonymous. One of the most famous forums for anonymous speech is 4chan's "Random" forum, and even there prosecution was possible against a user. The site owner cooperated with investigators. This wasn't a surprise to any long-time users, because everyone knows a site that doesn't cooperate in criminal investigations is not long for this world. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/fbi/turns-out-4chan-not-lawless-it-seems http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/fbi/turns-out-4chan-not-...

compsciphd 6y ago
in legal cases, its possible. But it removes any consequence for the anonymous speech that is not legally actionable. While there's value to that type of speech, it should also be devalued by others. So, see what I wrote above as a modification of the proposal. To encourage all users to be verifiable, for end users to be easily able to identify non verified users, and hence to be able to devalue those opinions.