5 ms·

There is someone deciding on what content to post with the New York Times. If a site like twitter is engaging in that activity - then they should loose 230 immu

There is someone deciding on what content to post with the New York Times. If a site like twitter is engaging in that activity - then they should loose 230 immunity, because they are acting like a publisher instead of a platform. It seems relatively straight forward, doesn't it?

qudchewer 6y ago
I don't understand why someone would down-vote this, please explain.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  It sounds like you like a lot of people have insufficient understanding of what 230 is. Most people who express similar theories really just want the government to make it illegal to moderate deplorables with a thin justification. It's easier to vote down and move on the 95th time someone makes a bad argument.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    What is a “deplorable”? If you’re using it in the same context as Hillary, that’s not really helping your argument because it’s an ill-defined slur used to describe millions of people.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      A deplorable defined one who holds odious beliefs or views that aren't merely wrong but actively harmful to themselves and others. Bigots, anti vaxxers, anti science (the process not a particular theory), people who support violence as a means to political change it n functional societies.
      - kortilla 6y ago
        Yep, keep in mind she described half of the people who voted for Trump like that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables) so the word basically means “Republican”. Using it is only useful as a Shibboleth to indicate you’re aligned with American leftist views.
        michaelmrose 6y ago
        The republican party in its present incarnation is a deplorable group with no ethics and bad intentions. It embodies none of the virtues it purports to represents and many vices. The only non deplorable reason to support it is to obtain tax breaks which still means that you are putting a lower tax rate ahead of everything else including ethics, your fellow man, and even basic competence. Deplorable aptly wraps this up in a bow whereas the converse charges of "Marxist" "Communist" "Anarchist" are entirely detached from reality.
        kortilla 6y ago
        > The republican party in its present incarnation is a deplorable group with no ethics and bad intentions. Source? It’s not clear to me how an intelligent person could think this about 40 million people without some severe brainwashing. Rather than “this group appears to have different priorities than I”, it has become, “these people clearly have no ethics”. How would you feel about right-wingers saying the entire Democratic Party has no ethics and bad intentions because it continually supports baby murder? If you don’t think that’s a fare assessment of the party’s ethics, perhaps you should reconsider how you arrived at your conclusion.
- Multicomp 6y ago
  Sometimes downvotes are used for disagreement instead of a signal that a comment thread is off-topic or boring. FWIW asking why you are downvoted also makes for boring reading so is also discouraged. I'm somewhat doing the same to explain this but I'd rather you know for future discourse. As far as why they disagree, I'd suspect it is something more or less in the same ballpark as the below. Excerpt from https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... > If you said "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher" > I regret to inform you that you are wrong. I know that you've likely heard this from someone else -- perhaps even someone respected -- but it's just not true. The law says no such thing. Again, I encourage you to read it. The law does distinguish between "interactive computer services" and "information content providers," but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying "platform" or "publisher." There is no "certification" or "decision" that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else. > To be a bit more explicit: at no point in any court case regarding Section 230 is there a need to determine whether or not a particular website is a "platform" or a "publisher." What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it.
  - chewerofqud 6y ago
    Had to create a new account, and use a vpn to reply to you. I broke some rule that isn't clearly defined on the site, and it's not indicating when I will be able to post again. Is Hacker News actually a place for free discussion of curious minds? Thank you for your answer - It's helped me in multiple dimensions. The sentiment that important discussion need be entertaining makes me sad, but it is what it is. Be well.
URSpider94 6y ago
It is not straightforward, because the law doesn’t draw that distinction. Additionally, almost any “platform” has to reserve the right to moderate content to keep its customers and stay in business. Nobody wants to advertise on a site that is filled with white supremacist memes and pornographic material.

qudchewer 6y ago

I don't understand why someone would down-vote this, please explain.

michaelmrose 6y ago
It sounds like you like a lot of people have insufficient understanding of what 230 is. Most people who express similar theories really just want the government to make it illegal to moderate deplorables with a thin justification. It's easier to vote down and move on the 95th time someone makes a bad argument.
- kortilla 6y ago
  What is a “deplorable”? If you’re using it in the same context as Hillary, that’s not really helping your argument because it’s an ill-defined slur used to describe millions of people.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    A deplorable defined one who holds odious beliefs or views that aren't merely wrong but actively harmful to themselves and others. Bigots, anti vaxxers, anti science (the process not a particular theory), people who support violence as a means to political change it n functional societies.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      Yep, keep in mind she described half of the people who voted for Trump like that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables) so the word basically means “Republican”. Using it is only useful as a Shibboleth to indicate you’re aligned with American leftist views.
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        The republican party in its present incarnation is a deplorable group with no ethics and bad intentions. It embodies none of the virtues it purports to represents and many vices. The only non deplorable reason to support it is to obtain tax breaks which still means that you are putting a lower tax rate ahead of everything else including ethics, your fellow man, and even basic competence. Deplorable aptly wraps this up in a bow whereas the converse charges of "Marxist" "Communist" "Anarchist" are entirely detached from reality.
        kortilla 6y ago
        > The republican party in its present incarnation is a deplorable group with no ethics and bad intentions. Source? It’s not clear to me how an intelligent person could think this about 40 million people without some severe brainwashing. Rather than “this group appears to have different priorities than I”, it has become, “these people clearly have no ethics”. How would you feel about right-wingers saying the entire Democratic Party has no ethics and bad intentions because it continually supports baby murder? If you don’t think that’s a fare assessment of the party’s ethics, perhaps you should reconsider how you arrived at your conclusion.
Multicomp 6y ago
Sometimes downvotes are used for disagreement instead of a signal that a comment thread is off-topic or boring. FWIW asking why you are downvoted also makes for boring reading so is also discouraged. I'm somewhat doing the same to explain this but I'd rather you know for future discourse. As far as why they disagree, I'd suspect it is something more or less in the same ballpark as the below. Excerpt from https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... > If you said "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher" > I regret to inform you that you are wrong. I know that you've likely heard this from someone else -- perhaps even someone respected -- but it's just not true. The law says no such thing. Again, I encourage you to read it. The law does distinguish between "interactive computer services" and "information content providers," but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying "platform" or "publisher." There is no "certification" or "decision" that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else. > To be a bit more explicit: at no point in any court case regarding Section 230 is there a need to determine whether or not a particular website is a "platform" or a "publisher." What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it.
- chewerofqud 6y ago
  Had to create a new account, and use a vpn to reply to you. I broke some rule that isn't clearly defined on the site, and it's not indicating when I will be able to post again. Is Hacker News actually a place for free discussion of curious minds? Thank you for your answer - It's helped me in multiple dimensions. The sentiment that important discussion need be entertaining makes me sad, but it is what it is. Be well.

URSpider94 6y ago

It is not straightforward, because the law doesn’t draw that distinction. Additionally, almost any “platform” has to reserve the right to moderate content to keep its customers and stay in business. Nobody wants to advertise on a site that is filled with white supremacist memes and pornographic material.