5 ms·

They are because there’s been an historical division between publishers and carriers. 230 is about that, it lets intermediaries create policies, without having

They are because there’s been an historical division between publishers and carriers. 230 is about that, it lets intermediaries create policies, without having to choose between being publishers or carriers. Disclaimer: I don’t like this side effect too

pron 6y ago
Any platform has always had the freedom to shape its reputation by choosing what to publish/amplify and how, within the law, regardless of what it pays the speakers (TV stations don't pay interviewees, for example). 230 has absolutely nothing at all to do with that.
- tgragnato 6y ago
  230 protects moderation of published content. I hate the framing of the practical issues stemming from this in a matter of bipartisan policy. I’d suggests people are realizing giant Internet companies are chokepoints on the flow of information, and don’t like how this is being handled.
michaelmrose 6y ago
There has been a division because historically publication was expensive and labor intensive not because of some inherent virtue of the arrangements. Some people who don't like the moderation policies have created a fictional world where such policies are wrong instead of merely disagreeable like someone who hates pineapple imagining that putting them on pizza violates some moral principal instead of merely their own tastes. If you examine such a request the user nearly always desires not broader liability for websites but for the government to use such liability as a cudgle to force websites to accept speech they would otherwise object to and host it on their platform. Effectively they want to take away others freedom and compell their speech. This is so obviously immoral that one wonders what moral principles could possibly justify this.
- tgragnato 6y ago
  What changed since 230 was enacted is simple from my pov ... There are few platforms. Without those few enormous platforms shaping the public discourse, 230 is largely good and unproblematic. Which is why I’d love to have more platforms, while retaining 230. But I also need to acknowledge that’s not where we are heading to.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    What does the number of platforms have to do with anything?
    - tgragnato 6y ago
      Extreme and fringe ideas would naturally move to unpopular platforms, and die over time. With too few platforms some are arguing they feel censored, banned from participating in public discourse.
      - giantrobot 6y ago
        > With too few platforms some are arguing they feel censored, banned from participating in public discourse. The people making these arguments aren't doing so in good faith. They're playing the victim for extra attention. They claim they're banned from platforms because of their "conservative" politics when in fact it was them directly advocating for direct and explicit violence against political opponents that got them banned. There's nothing "conservative" about advocating murder for your political opposition. That's not a necessary part of a conservative ethos. It's also not any sort of political discussion. If someone openly advocates for your murder you can't meet them half way. When platforms get in trouble they make the same bad faith arguments. Parler whined claiming AWS dropped them for being a "conservative" platform while it was clear Amazon dropped them for not taking any meaningful steps to shut down open and explicit calls for violence.
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        You are describing an important and functional element of social networks going back thousands of years. Substantially new and different ideas most of which are bad and stupid face a trial by fire and over time society adopts the survivors.
nradov 6y ago
230 isn't about that. It doesn't regulate Internet sites as common carriers. You're drawing a false distinction.
URSpider94 6y ago
You are mistaken about the rights and responsibilites of carriers. Carriers have never been required to carry all content without distinction. Just think about your cell phone company - if I get a call from someone they thing is a phone scammer, their name pops up in my caller ID as “scam likely” - the phone company is doing that! The biggest flaw in thinking here is that carriers are forbidden from curating the content that they carry.

pron 6y ago

Any platform has always had the freedom to shape its reputation by choosing what to publish/amplify and how, within the law, regardless of what it pays the speakers (TV stations don't pay interviewees, for example). 230 has absolutely nothing at all to do with that.

tgragnato 6y ago
230 protects moderation of published content. I hate the framing of the practical issues stemming from this in a matter of bipartisan policy. I’d suggests people are realizing giant Internet companies are chokepoints on the flow of information, and don’t like how this is being handled.

michaelmrose 6y ago

There has been a division because historically publication was expensive and labor intensive not because of some inherent virtue of the arrangements. Some people who don't like the moderation policies have created a fictional world where such policies are wrong instead of merely disagreeable like someone who hates pineapple imagining that putting them on pizza violates some moral principal instead of merely their own tastes. If you examine such a request the user nearly always desires not broader liability for websites but for the government to use such liability as a cudgle to force websites to accept speech they would otherwise object to and host it on their platform. Effectively they want to take away others freedom and compell their speech. This is so obviously immoral that one wonders what moral principles could possibly justify this.

tgragnato 6y ago
What changed since 230 was enacted is simple from my pov ... There are few platforms. Without those few enormous platforms shaping the public discourse, 230 is largely good and unproblematic. Which is why I’d love to have more platforms, while retaining 230. But I also need to acknowledge that’s not where we are heading to.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  What does the number of platforms have to do with anything?
  - tgragnato 6y ago
    Extreme and fringe ideas would naturally move to unpopular platforms, and die over time. With too few platforms some are arguing they feel censored, banned from participating in public discourse.
    - giantrobot 6y ago
      > With too few platforms some are arguing they feel censored, banned from participating in public discourse. The people making these arguments aren't doing so in good faith. They're playing the victim for extra attention. They claim they're banned from platforms because of their "conservative" politics when in fact it was them directly advocating for direct and explicit violence against political opponents that got them banned. There's nothing "conservative" about advocating murder for your political opposition. That's not a necessary part of a conservative ethos. It's also not any sort of political discussion. If someone openly advocates for your murder you can't meet them half way. When platforms get in trouble they make the same bad faith arguments. Parler whined claiming AWS dropped them for being a "conservative" platform while it was clear Amazon dropped them for not taking any meaningful steps to shut down open and explicit calls for violence.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      You are describing an important and functional element of social networks going back thousands of years. Substantially new and different ideas most of which are bad and stupid face a trial by fire and over time society adopts the survivors.

nradov 6y ago

230 isn't about that. It doesn't regulate Internet sites as common carriers. You're drawing a false distinction.

URSpider94 6y ago

You are mistaken about the rights and responsibilites of carriers. Carriers have never been required to carry all content without distinction. Just think about your cell phone company - if I get a call from someone they thing is a phone scammer, their name pops up in my caller ID as “scam likely” - the phone company is doing that! The biggest flaw in thinking here is that carriers are forbidden from curating the content that they carry.