4 ms·

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

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 The moment Section 230 was repealed you'd see thousands of frivolous lawsuits against any company with deep pockets.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.

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.