12 ms·

I understand the issue a bit differently. If a user writes some content that stays as a comment somewhere and it is defamatory, then the user is responsible. So

I understand the issue a bit differently. If a user writes some content that stays as a comment somewhere and it is defamatory, then the user is responsible. So far, so good. This is what 230 used to address. But the real issue at play is that an algorithm decides that this content will increase engagement within the platform. And it actually does. Now, I think the company behind this algorithm is responsible for the defamation. For example Facebook uses the current law to hide and so all its fight with disinformation is subject to keeping the same engagement levels, which is obviously a very hard task. (We tried hard, but the problem is too difficult). While the first case is good to address, the second one has severally outgrown it. Thus, so many people are even willing to give up something in order to address it.

wizzwizz4 6y ago
Very concisely put.
adgjlsfhk1 6y ago
The problem is that without section 230, it becomes impossible for any website to have user hosted content. If websites are responsible for shit their users say, no website that posts user content can exist. No one is going to risk being sued over something a user says.
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  Fine. Websites aren't responsible for the content. But make them responsible for promoting or curating the content, if they choose to do so. Instagram just shows me all the stuff my friends post. That's it, as far as I can tell. It's great. Facebook amplifies some things and doesn't show me others. If it wants to be in that game, of distorting informational impact, it needs to take responsibility for what it's amplifying.
  - blendergeek 6y ago
    > Instagram just shows me all the stuff my friends post. That's it, as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, Instagram is not just "showing you everything your friends post".
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      I’m kind of curious as to what the person is seeing, because every third post I see is an ad placed by Instagram, and for some of the meme pages you reach nearly that much saturation with sponsored posts.
      - GavinMcG 6y ago
        I mean obviously there are ads, but if my friends post something, it's at the top of my feed, and I can scroll through only content that my friends post (and ads).
        kelnos 6y ago
        It's still not just a linear feed, though. Years ago it was just a reverse-chronological feed of things your friends post. Now the ordering is "algorithmic". I can't think of any good reason to reorder posts other than to try to increase engagement, which is the problem we're talking about here.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    If you don't allow curation, that's the end of moderated forums like Hacker News, isn't it?
    - GavinMcG 6y ago
      Who said anything about not allowing curation? > make them responsible for promoting or curating the content, if they choose to do so
      - roywiggins 6y ago
        So, Y Combinator can choose to be liable for anything defamatory that manages to get onto the front page (there is, after all, an algorithm), or anything defamatory that they fail to delete out of the comment section. It doesn't seem sustainable.
- giantrobot 6y ago
  Which ends up affecting sites like Github and support forums. The moment Section 230 was repealed you'd see thousands of frivolous lawsuits against any company with deep pockets.
  - temp8964 6y ago
    Or maybe centralized services like GitHub should not exist? And internet should be back to BBS days where public content are moderated by volunteers in each community separately? Now I think section 230 is not a necessity for an open internet. It just changed how internet works by making centralized business easier.
    - nine_k 6y ago
      What is the material difference between a web site and a BBS? BBS operators would be equally responsible, and won't run BBSes. Same with chat rooms and IRC channels — their operators could be sued, so they won't run anything like that for public service. Of course, a web forum could still be run over Tor, hiding the webmaster and the participants. There would be no one to sue, so whatever inflammatory content were on such a forum, it would stay unless the moderators cared. If the point is to stifle the public discussion and push it underground, then removing the protection of operators from liability for UGC is the way to go.
      - temp8964 6y ago
        I don't find it unreasonable to ask website / BBS owner to be responsible for content on their website. I don't remember BBSs constantly got sued in the old days.
        giantrobot 6y ago
        A BBS in the days of yore didn't have deep pockets for anyone to go after. They did however get sued or taken down for copyright issues and other content. There's the infamous case of the Secret Service raiding the offices of Steve Jackson Games [0] over content that was in an upcoming book for the GURPS role playing game [1]. [0] https://www.eff.org/cases/steve-jackson-games-v-secret-service-case-archive https://www.eff.org/cases/steve-jackson-games-v-secret-servi... [1] http://www.sjgames.com/SS/ http://www.sjgames.com/SS/
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > The problem is that without section 230, it becomes impossible for any website to have user hosted content. If websites are responsible for shit their users say, no website that posts user content can exist. That has nothing to do with section 230. Websites weren't responsible for user-generated content before section 230 and they still wouldn't be if it went away. What section 230 does is extend the same immunity that content-blind hosts have always had to hosts that modify the content they get from users. This comment upthread: > If a user writes some content that stays as a comment somewhere and it is defamatory, then the user is responsible. So far, so good. This is what 230 used to address. is wrong. Section 230 didn't address that case; the user was always the responsible party. To see section 230 at work, you need a more complicated setup: 1. User A posts defamatory content to a web forum. 2. User B posts defamatory content to the same forum. 3. The forum operators see User B's post, are outraged, and take it down. This is where section 230 makes a difference. It says that, even though the forum takes control of user-generated content for the purpose of expressing its own views, it still isn't liable for content that it hasn't directly touched. In the absence of section 230, the forum would bear liability for user A's defamatory post as soon as they took down user B's post. There's no problem hosting user-generated content without section 230. You only have a problem if you editorialize on top of that content.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    I prefer my jacket News with moderation. Section 230 is what allows sites to moderate. Without it you have to have either no moderation, or perfect moderation.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > No one is going to risk being sued over something a user says. No small company would, but some multi-billion dollar companies might. They sure would censor the hell out of any user content, though, or else they'd run the risk of being raided in the middle of the night by the FBI if a user found it funny to upload something illegal to their servers. Which brings us to the OP's argument, that repealing Section 230 wouldn't do what the repeal proponents want. The end result of repealing Section 230 of the CDA is that total online censorship becomes the norm, and only giant companies would be able to benefit from the limited user-generated content that's allowed to exist after the repeal.
- boatmansloth 6y ago
  It's possible, but your scale is severely limited as you have to actively moderate your site. You also have to build a culture where users value their position in the community and fear losing access to it for doing the wrong thing. Websites/forums exist in countries without an s230 equivalent.
upbeat_general 6y ago
In your view does this apply to all algorithms or just ones that discriminate based on the content itself (ie use content as an input). If the algorithm simply prioritizes say the most upvoted comment, is that the same? Or how about prioritizes the most watched/liked video? I ask this because it’s basically impossible to not prioritize content unless a website is a mere directory of user information with no search box. Where do you think the distinction lies between being responsible for user engagement and not?
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  Any promotion of content without the user explicitly asking for it should be considered as an endorsement. People can search for things they want to follow if they want too. It is crazy, logging back into Facebook, how far it has gone away from the chronological feed of your friends that it started off as.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  > If the algorithm simply prioritizes say the most upvoted comment, is that the same? Or how about prioritizes the most watched/liked video? This used to be handled by the user clicking a button that said "sort by most votes" or the top of a column called "votes." Now it's a mystery how to handle that no one could possibly know how to do.
hintymad 6y ago
I'm not sure if it's just algorithms. Twitter banned accounts for discussing why we needed to protest for fair elections because they "incite violence", yet Khamenei's tweet of calling for "eradicating" a people and a nation has been there since 2017. Twitter banned accounts for challenging the effectiveness of wear masks because they are "anti-science", yet it didn't do a thing when people were challenging CNN/WHO/CDC's messages that wearing masks was unnecessary and would cause public panic in March 2020. I'd support repealing of section 230 jsut for this level of double standards.
- lsh123 6y ago
  I think the point of the post is that repealing section 230 would not help with “fairness” on the platforms. The arguments in the post are pretty strong imho.
  - amaranth 6y ago
    I think you're seeing this case from the article: > So when you see Trump or other conservatives calling for a Section 230 repeal, sometimes it is just an effort to inflict pain to try and get the platforms to do what they want.
    - wernercd 6y ago
      And what do they want? Fairness... IE: Violent posts from SJWs attacking white people and supporting violence in BLM/AntiFA "protests"? Many MANY still standing and complete silence from the platforms during YEARS of violence, hate and instigation... "violent posts" from conservatives supporting thousands of examples of voter fraud and calling for peaceful marches - just like Trump called for - while questioning the "truth" about mask mandates that have changed on political whims (Fauci: for masks, against masks, for masks, against masks, etc)? THOSE have to be taken down with extreme prejudice... The double standards the platforms are pushing is so extreme that "peaceful scholars" are honored... while American Presidents are banned... You can, for four years, say "russia hacked our elections" with the evidence being a single foreigner paid by the DNC for spy information. But you can't say "democrats hacked our elections" with thousands of Americans presenting evidence. The article is true that no one is going to be happy... but that won't change while the platforms are the massive hypocrites that everyone in the world can see on full display as they push 1984's "Truth".
aeturnum 6y ago
I think there's a good case to be made for amending 230. 230 was written for a pre-algorithmic feed age where user content was displayed in a fixed context setup by the provider. The provider chose the frame, the user the painting. Now users send content to a machine that is constantly making new frames to better match the pictures it is given. The picture is still the picture - still made by the user, but the site bears more responsibility for its presentation because its 'framing' is based on the contents / reaction to the picture. However, I do not think a total transformation has occurred. Choosing how to display the picture doesn't change its contents. Writing a law that sensibly engages with the huge diversity of algorithmic strategies would be difficult even for skilled legislators (if only we had some!). Maybe the answer is in formalizing shadowbanning in some way?
edmundsauto 6y ago
This implies the distribution of false information is the problem. What culpability do you place on the producer and consumer?
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> While the first case is good to address, the second one has severally outgrown it. The problem with all of the repeal proposals is that none of them actually address the problem. Suppose you're a search engine. One of the search hits is making a factual claim. The search engine naturally has no way to validate the claim. That would require an investigation, giving the accused an opportunity to defend their claim and then having a neutral arbiter make a decision. This essentially describes a trial in court. We already have civil litigation. If you prove a defamation claim, you can have the court order it to be removed by the host or search engine. Anything Congress could do about this would be an attempt to end run around the First Amendment, i.e. de facto require private companies to operate a shadow court system and then pretend the First Amendment doesn't apply even though it's being instituted through legislation. It should be obvious why we don't want this -- if the government is imposing penalties only for not censoring things then you're going to get one-sided suppression of dissent, but if you punish them for over-censoring too then you're just cloning the actual court system and might as well use the real one. The root of the problem here isn't Section 230. It's that these platforms are too large, so that any mistake they make gets amplified across a billion people instead of a million. Break them up.
sleepysysadmin 6y ago
I understand your position but I'm curious. There's more depth to the subject. any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; That's section 230. Yes if it's defamatory or libel. Then section 230 is explicitly allowing the platforms to censor. The 2 sides of the problem come when it's speech that isnt listed right there. It can be offensive, unpopular, or controversial but section 230 does not allow the platforms to censor those subjects. Section 230 outright says constitutionally protected. So the main problem is that platforms have illegally broken good Samaritan protections and have effectively removed their section 230 protection on their own. However, that's problem #2. Section 230 never made allowances for punishment or lawsuits. If Twitter lost their section 230 protection, they stop existing the next day. That's the only punishment but that would be tremendous wealth destruction.

wizzwizz4 6y ago

Very concisely put.

adgjlsfhk1 6y ago

The problem is that without section 230, it becomes impossible for any website to have user hosted content. If websites are responsible for shit their users say, no website that posts user content can exist. No one is going to risk being sued over something a user says.

GavinMcG 6y ago
Fine. Websites aren't responsible for the content. But make them responsible for promoting or curating the content, if they choose to do so. Instagram just shows me all the stuff my friends post. That's it, as far as I can tell. It's great. Facebook amplifies some things and doesn't show me others. If it wants to be in that game, of distorting informational impact, it needs to take responsibility for what it's amplifying.
- blendergeek 6y ago
  > Instagram just shows me all the stuff my friends post. That's it, as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, Instagram is not just "showing you everything your friends post".
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    I’m kind of curious as to what the person is seeing, because every third post I see is an ad placed by Instagram, and for some of the meme pages you reach nearly that much saturation with sponsored posts.
    - GavinMcG 6y ago
      I mean obviously there are ads, but if my friends post something, it's at the top of my feed, and I can scroll through only content that my friends post (and ads).
      - kelnos 6y ago
        It's still not just a linear feed, though. Years ago it was just a reverse-chronological feed of things your friends post. Now the ordering is "algorithmic". I can't think of any good reason to reorder posts other than to try to increase engagement, which is the problem we're talking about here.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  If you don't allow curation, that's the end of moderated forums like Hacker News, isn't it?
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    Who said anything about not allowing curation? > make them responsible for promoting or curating the content, if they choose to do so
    - roywiggins 6y ago
      So, Y Combinator can choose to be liable for anything defamatory that manages to get onto the front page (there is, after all, an algorithm), or anything defamatory that they fail to delete out of the comment section. It doesn't seem sustainable.
giantrobot 6y ago
Which ends up affecting sites like Github and support forums. The moment Section 230 was repealed you'd see thousands of frivolous lawsuits against any company with deep pockets.
- temp8964 6y ago
  Or maybe centralized services like GitHub should not exist? And internet should be back to BBS days where public content are moderated by volunteers in each community separately? Now I think section 230 is not a necessity for an open internet. It just changed how internet works by making centralized business easier.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    What is the material difference between a web site and a BBS? BBS operators would be equally responsible, and won't run BBSes. Same with chat rooms and IRC channels — their operators could be sued, so they won't run anything like that for public service. Of course, a web forum could still be run over Tor, hiding the webmaster and the participants. There would be no one to sue, so whatever inflammatory content were on such a forum, it would stay unless the moderators cared. If the point is to stifle the public discussion and push it underground, then removing the protection of operators from liability for UGC is the way to go.
    - temp8964 6y ago
      I don't find it unreasonable to ask website / BBS owner to be responsible for content on their website. I don't remember BBSs constantly got sued in the old days.
      - giantrobot 6y ago
        A BBS in the days of yore didn't have deep pockets for anyone to go after. They did however get sued or taken down for copyright issues and other content. There's the infamous case of the Secret Service raiding the offices of Steve Jackson Games [0] over content that was in an upcoming book for the GURPS role playing game [1]. [0] https://www.eff.org/cases/steve-jackson-games-v-secret-service-case-archive https://www.eff.org/cases/steve-jackson-games-v-secret-servi... [1] http://www.sjgames.com/SS/ http://www.sjgames.com/SS/
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> The problem is that without section 230, it becomes impossible for any website to have user hosted content. If websites are responsible for shit their users say, no website that posts user content can exist. That has nothing to do with section 230. Websites weren't responsible for user-generated content before section 230 and they still wouldn't be if it went away. What section 230 does is extend the same immunity that content-blind hosts have always had to hosts that modify the content they get from users. This comment upthread: > If a user writes some content that stays as a comment somewhere and it is defamatory, then the user is responsible. So far, so good. This is what 230 used to address. is wrong. Section 230 didn't address that case; the user was always the responsible party. To see section 230 at work, you need a more complicated setup: 1. User A posts defamatory content to a web forum. 2. User B posts defamatory content to the same forum. 3. The forum operators see User B's post, are outraged, and take it down. This is where section 230 makes a difference. It says that, even though the forum takes control of user-generated content for the purpose of expressing its own views, it still isn't liable for content that it hasn't directly touched. In the absence of section 230, the forum would bear liability for user A's defamatory post as soon as they took down user B's post. There's no problem hosting user-generated content without section 230. You only have a problem if you editorialize on top of that content.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  I prefer my jacket News with moderation. Section 230 is what allows sites to moderate. Without it you have to have either no moderation, or perfect moderation.
heavyset_go 6y ago
> No one is going to risk being sued over something a user says. No small company would, but some multi-billion dollar companies might. They sure would censor the hell out of any user content, though, or else they'd run the risk of being raided in the middle of the night by the FBI if a user found it funny to upload something illegal to their servers. Which brings us to the OP's argument, that repealing Section 230 wouldn't do what the repeal proponents want. The end result of repealing Section 230 of the CDA is that total online censorship becomes the norm, and only giant companies would be able to benefit from the limited user-generated content that's allowed to exist after the repeal.
boatmansloth 6y ago
It's possible, but your scale is severely limited as you have to actively moderate your site. You also have to build a culture where users value their position in the community and fear losing access to it for doing the wrong thing. Websites/forums exist in countries without an s230 equivalent.

upbeat_general 6y ago

In your view does this apply to all algorithms or just ones that discriminate based on the content itself (ie use content as an input). If the algorithm simply prioritizes say the most upvoted comment, is that the same? Or how about prioritizes the most watched/liked video? I ask this because it’s basically impossible to not prioritize content unless a website is a mere directory of user information with no search box. Where do you think the distinction lies between being responsible for user engagement and not?

bobthepanda 6y ago
Any promotion of content without the user explicitly asking for it should be considered as an endorsement. People can search for things they want to follow if they want too. It is crazy, logging back into Facebook, how far it has gone away from the chronological feed of your friends that it started off as.
pessimizer 6y ago
> If the algorithm simply prioritizes say the most upvoted comment, is that the same? Or how about prioritizes the most watched/liked video? This used to be handled by the user clicking a button that said "sort by most votes" or the top of a column called "votes." Now it's a mystery how to handle that no one could possibly know how to do.

hintymad 6y ago

I'm not sure if it's just algorithms. Twitter banned accounts for discussing why we needed to protest for fair elections because they "incite violence", yet Khamenei's tweet of calling for "eradicating" a people and a nation has been there since 2017. Twitter banned accounts for challenging the effectiveness of wear masks because they are "anti-science", yet it didn't do a thing when people were challenging CNN/WHO/CDC's messages that wearing masks was unnecessary and would cause public panic in March 2020. I'd support repealing of section 230 jsut for this level of double standards.

lsh123 6y ago
I think the point of the post is that repealing section 230 would not help with “fairness” on the platforms. The arguments in the post are pretty strong imho.
- amaranth 6y ago
  I think you're seeing this case from the article: > So when you see Trump or other conservatives calling for a Section 230 repeal, sometimes it is just an effort to inflict pain to try and get the platforms to do what they want.
  - wernercd 6y ago
    And what do they want? Fairness... IE: Violent posts from SJWs attacking white people and supporting violence in BLM/AntiFA "protests"? Many MANY still standing and complete silence from the platforms during YEARS of violence, hate and instigation... "violent posts" from conservatives supporting thousands of examples of voter fraud and calling for peaceful marches - just like Trump called for - while questioning the "truth" about mask mandates that have changed on political whims (Fauci: for masks, against masks, for masks, against masks, etc)? THOSE have to be taken down with extreme prejudice... The double standards the platforms are pushing is so extreme that "peaceful scholars" are honored... while American Presidents are banned... You can, for four years, say "russia hacked our elections" with the evidence being a single foreigner paid by the DNC for spy information. But you can't say "democrats hacked our elections" with thousands of Americans presenting evidence. The article is true that no one is going to be happy... but that won't change while the platforms are the massive hypocrites that everyone in the world can see on full display as they push 1984's "Truth".

aeturnum 6y ago

I think there's a good case to be made for amending 230. 230 was written for a pre-algorithmic feed age where user content was displayed in a fixed context setup by the provider. The provider chose the frame, the user the painting. Now users send content to a machine that is constantly making new frames to better match the pictures it is given. The picture is still the picture - still made by the user, but the site bears more responsibility for its presentation because its 'framing' is based on the contents / reaction to the picture. However, I do not think a total transformation has occurred. Choosing how to display the picture doesn't change its contents. Writing a law that sensibly engages with the huge diversity of algorithmic strategies would be difficult even for skilled legislators (if only we had some!). Maybe the answer is in formalizing shadowbanning in some way?

edmundsauto 6y ago

This implies the distribution of false information is the problem. What culpability do you place on the producer and consumer?

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> While the first case is good to address, the second one has severally outgrown it. The problem with all of the repeal proposals is that none of them actually address the problem. Suppose you're a search engine. One of the search hits is making a factual claim. The search engine naturally has no way to validate the claim. That would require an investigation, giving the accused an opportunity to defend their claim and then having a neutral arbiter make a decision. This essentially describes a trial in court. We already have civil litigation. If you prove a defamation claim, you can have the court order it to be removed by the host or search engine. Anything Congress could do about this would be an attempt to end run around the First Amendment, i.e. de facto require private companies to operate a shadow court system and then pretend the First Amendment doesn't apply even though it's being instituted through legislation. It should be obvious why we don't want this -- if the government is imposing penalties only for not censoring things then you're going to get one-sided suppression of dissent, but if you punish them for over-censoring too then you're just cloning the actual court system and might as well use the real one. The root of the problem here isn't Section 230. It's that these platforms are too large, so that any mistake they make gets amplified across a billion people instead of a million. Break them up.

sleepysysadmin 6y ago

I understand your position but I'm curious. There's more depth to the subject. any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; That's section 230. Yes if it's defamatory or libel. Then section 230 is explicitly allowing the platforms to censor. The 2 sides of the problem come when it's speech that isnt listed right there. It can be offensive, unpopular, or controversial but section 230 does not allow the platforms to censor those subjects. Section 230 outright says constitutionally protected. So the main problem is that platforms have illegally broken good Samaritan protections and have effectively removed their section 230 protection on their own. However, that's problem #2. Section 230 never made allowances for punishment or lawsuits. If Twitter lost their section 230 protection, they stop existing the next day. That's the only punishment but that would be tremendous wealth destruction.