4 ms·

So if I have an online magazine, I can't choose what kinds of authors I want to invite? How is that any different than reddit deciding what communities to have/

So if I have an online magazine, I can't choose what kinds of authors I want to invite? How is that any different than reddit deciding what communities to have/not have...

Grustaf 5y ago
I think the idea is that the tech giants are NOT publishers. If they were, they would be responsible for third-party content. So they can't really use that argument if they want to continue being exempted from responsibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
- hackyhacky 5y ago
  Section 230 does not mean what you think. 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...
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Literally read the link you just posted, the text of Section 230 makes absolutely no distinction between 'Publishers' and platforms. I really wish people would stop parroting this completely incorrect reading of the law. Or take it from Mike Masnick: > 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. 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...
  - AbrahamParangi 5y ago
    The point that people are making is that they believe the "spirit of the law" is a conceptual split between platforms and publishers. The way people commonly think of telephones vs newspapers. Telephones are a platform for speaking, newspapers are a publisher with editorial control. The discussion is not about whether or not social media companies have Section 230 protection but whether or not they should have it.
- aphextron 5y ago
  >I think the idea is that the tech giants are NOT publishers. If they were, they would be responsible for third-party content In an ideal world we repeal Section 230 and the US government provides, free of charge, a small digital space for each citizen to say whatever they want in the context of free speech. There's no reason we should allow these tech monopolies to exist and maintain their fiefdoms of extrajudicial decisions about what is or isn't considered protected speech. If we want to assert that digital communication is a protected right, there's no other way.
  - NikolaNovak 5y ago
    >>maintain their fiefdoms of extrajudicial decisions about what is or isn't considered protected speech Where do they do that? My understanding of U.S.A. First amendment is that government won't infringe on your right of free speech. It doesn't say you can come into my home, workplace, store, or website and yell what you want on my property. There's nothing "Extrajudicial" about it and it's not "Protected speech". It's just a business owner saying "you can say whatever you want, but not necessarily in my home, on a platform I built and pay for". I think we've gone weird somewhere if we think Facebook == Public Square on any level. It's just somebody's storefront (and insert cliches about who / what is the product :) In some ways, I am hoping tech giants do MORE weird policies / bans / things, so hopefully general population sees it as a private proprietary closed property / platform that it is, not a friendly public gathering spot we somehow take it for. But I still don't think they are doing anything illegal/extrajudicial... it seems people feel they have strange rights or ownership on Facebook or Twitter, have some investment in property, treat it almost as a mix of paid-for condo and public space (depending on what they need to assert at the moment)... and none of that is the case. At best, you are walking in a Mall, and if you start yelling obscenities, pontificating, or even start advertising for different shops etc, the mall security guard will escort you out, as is legal and proper. It's not government infringing your constitutionally protect free speech, it's not extrajudicial, even if you don't like it and really really wanted to yell obscenities or market your business or promote your personal point of view in the mall.
    - mrfusion 5y ago
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  Yeah that Platform vs Publishers thing is one of the most misunderstood things among internet geeks - I was completely wrong (and perpetuated my wrongness to others!) about it through hearsay for two decades until last year: 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... edit: Wow, 3+ of us jumped in with same link, Mr. Masnick has a following here :D
  - throwaway4china 5y ago
    or you are all sheep
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    Ha - yep. Domain experts are very useful!
tyingq 5y ago
I imagine the law's wording and scope has some issues. But addressing the situation where Google can render your phone, thermostat, etc, useless because you made a comment on YouTube is worthwhile.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
  > But addressing the situation where Google can render your phone, thermostat, etc, useless because you made a comment on YouTube is worthwhile. That's a noble goal, but this is a clear culture war law that will crumble under any real scrutiny. Hitching your wagon to a law that's all about sticking your finger in someone's eye isn't going to help your cause. So instead, what could a good regulation look like? Maybe something that says these providers are forced to moderate the user-facing pieces of their platform separately from the core infrastructure pieces of their platform: so you can be banned from posting to Facebook for whatever reason Facebook wants, but your existing "Login with Facebook" connections won't break. Maybe toss in some data retention requirements as well – you can't post new photos, for example, and you have up to a year to pull the photos you've posted before Facebook is allowed to purge them.
mc32 5y ago
It seems to me online platforms need to be addressed by modern laws rather than shoehorn laws that applied to different (old) media. It’s hard to say what the right balance would be. But just imagine if instead of the US, we were in Belarus. Or any other country with autocratic tendencies. Would we want the media to be one sided even if it’s controlled by oligarchs who would have clear selfish agendas? What do we want when the pendulum swings the other way? The same top down private decision on permissibility? I think there is a reason the likes of Roger Daltrey, John Cleese and others are weary of tech censorship. If these tools had been available in the 70s and 80s the world would be a different place.
simion314 5y ago
What I wish to happen is for the big companies to tell you what exactly you did wrong and give you the opportunity to appeal. Also giants like Google should not break all your stuff if they consider you did something wrong on youtube. Your perspective changes when you are hit by this stuff. My son managed to get my PlayStation account suspended for 2 months(while I have a 1 year subscription PS+ working) without no right to appeal and no clear/exact reason of what happened.
clifdweller 5y ago
that is the grey area 230 creates. Companies like facebook argue that they are more like the printing press that makes the magazine and not the magazine publisher. The issue arises when they choose to sometimes police their content. But this would be true even of a printer if a long time client that sold cigarettes or something sent in ads to be printed targeting kids it seems reasonable they could refuse services. But where to draw the line as 230 says they are not responsible to do that so does that mean if they choose to enforce decency rules are they responsible to be watchdogged or must police all content?

So if I have an online magazine, I can't choose what kinds of authors I want to invite? How is that any different than reddit deciding what communities to have/not have...

Grustaf 5y ago

I think the idea is that the tech giants are NOT publishers. If they were, they would be responsible for third-party content. So they can't really use that argument if they want to continue being exempted from responsibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

hackyhacky 5y ago
Section 230 does not mean what you think. 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...
mikeyouse 5y ago
Literally read the link you just posted, the text of Section 230 makes absolutely no distinction between 'Publishers' and platforms. I really wish people would stop parroting this completely incorrect reading of the law. Or take it from Mike Masnick: > 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. 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...
- AbrahamParangi 5y ago
  The point that people are making is that they believe the "spirit of the law" is a conceptual split between platforms and publishers. The way people commonly think of telephones vs newspapers. Telephones are a platform for speaking, newspapers are a publisher with editorial control. The discussion is not about whether or not social media companies have Section 230 protection but whether or not they should have it.
aphextron 5y ago
>I think the idea is that the tech giants are NOT publishers. If they were, they would be responsible for third-party content In an ideal world we repeal Section 230 and the US government provides, free of charge, a small digital space for each citizen to say whatever they want in the context of free speech. There's no reason we should allow these tech monopolies to exist and maintain their fiefdoms of extrajudicial decisions about what is or isn't considered protected speech. If we want to assert that digital communication is a protected right, there's no other way.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  >>maintain their fiefdoms of extrajudicial decisions about what is or isn't considered protected speech Where do they do that? My understanding of U.S.A. First amendment is that government won't infringe on your right of free speech. It doesn't say you can come into my home, workplace, store, or website and yell what you want on my property. There's nothing "Extrajudicial" about it and it's not "Protected speech". It's just a business owner saying "you can say whatever you want, but not necessarily in my home, on a platform I built and pay for". I think we've gone weird somewhere if we think Facebook == Public Square on any level. It's just somebody's storefront (and insert cliches about who / what is the product :) In some ways, I am hoping tech giants do MORE weird policies / bans / things, so hopefully general population sees it as a private proprietary closed property / platform that it is, not a friendly public gathering spot we somehow take it for. But I still don't think they are doing anything illegal/extrajudicial... it seems people feel they have strange rights or ownership on Facebook or Twitter, have some investment in property, treat it almost as a mix of paid-for condo and public space (depending on what they need to assert at the moment)... and none of that is the case. At best, you are walking in a Mall, and if you start yelling obscenities, pontificating, or even start advertising for different shops etc, the mall security guard will escort you out, as is legal and proper. It's not government infringing your constitutionally protect free speech, it's not extrajudicial, even if you don't like it and really really wanted to yell obscenities or market your business or promote your personal point of view in the mall.
  - mrfusion 5y ago
NikolaNovak 5y ago
Yeah that Platform vs Publishers thing is one of the most misunderstood things among internet geeks - I was completely wrong (and perpetuated my wrongness to others!) about it through hearsay for two decades until last year: 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... edit: Wow, 3+ of us jumped in with same link, Mr. Masnick has a following here :D
- throwaway4china 5y ago
  or you are all sheep
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Ha - yep. Domain experts are very useful!

tyingq 5y ago

I imagine the law's wording and scope has some issues. But addressing the situation where Google can render your phone, thermostat, etc, useless because you made a comment on YouTube is worthwhile.

35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
> But addressing the situation where Google can render your phone, thermostat, etc, useless because you made a comment on YouTube is worthwhile. That's a noble goal, but this is a clear culture war law that will crumble under any real scrutiny. Hitching your wagon to a law that's all about sticking your finger in someone's eye isn't going to help your cause. So instead, what could a good regulation look like? Maybe something that says these providers are forced to moderate the user-facing pieces of their platform separately from the core infrastructure pieces of their platform: so you can be banned from posting to Facebook for whatever reason Facebook wants, but your existing "Login with Facebook" connections won't break. Maybe toss in some data retention requirements as well – you can't post new photos, for example, and you have up to a year to pull the photos you've posted before Facebook is allowed to purge them.

mc32 5y ago

It seems to me online platforms need to be addressed by modern laws rather than shoehorn laws that applied to different (old) media. It’s hard to say what the right balance would be. But just imagine if instead of the US, we were in Belarus. Or any other country with autocratic tendencies. Would we want the media to be one sided even if it’s controlled by oligarchs who would have clear selfish agendas? What do we want when the pendulum swings the other way? The same top down private decision on permissibility? I think there is a reason the likes of Roger Daltrey, John Cleese and others are weary of tech censorship. If these tools had been available in the 70s and 80s the world would be a different place.

simion314 5y ago

What I wish to happen is for the big companies to tell you what exactly you did wrong and give you the opportunity to appeal. Also giants like Google should not break all your stuff if they consider you did something wrong on youtube. Your perspective changes when you are hit by this stuff. My son managed to get my PlayStation account suspended for 2 months(while I have a 1 year subscription PS+ working) without no right to appeal and no clear/exact reason of what happened.

clifdweller 5y ago

that is the grey area 230 creates. Companies like facebook argue that they are more like the printing press that makes the magazine and not the magazine publisher. The issue arises when they choose to sometimes police their content. But this would be true even of a printer if a long time client that sold cigarettes or something sent in ads to be printed targeting kids it seems reasonable they could refuse services. But where to draw the line as 230 says they are not responsible to do that so does that mean if they choose to enforce decency rules are they responsible to be watchdogged or must police all content?