5 ms·

> Yes they do. They would not be able to be sued, if they were a common carrier, and they would be unable to engage in many forms of censorship. If facebook do

> Yes they do. They would not be able to be sued, if they were a common carrier, and they would be unable to engage in many forms of censorship. If facebook doesn't moderate, they can't be sued anyway. Without section 230, moderation makes them liable, but if they choose not to moderate, they aren't liable. You're suggesting that by opting into a common carrier status, they gain what? > Common carriers are already allowed to do some forms of moderation/censorship. It is simply much more limited. Such as? As far as I can tell, they're allowed to moderate forms of pornographic and harassing content which, to be clear, a non-common carrier would be legally required to remove anyway. The statues you're referencing basically say that a common carrier still has to do the moderation that everyone else is legally required to do. > No it does not bring us back to that. Because common carriers are already allowed to do very limited forms of moderation, and that is what it would be a good thing to incentive facebook into having to follow. Except, you're 1. Mistaken about the status of the moderation common carriers can do, as I explained just above and 2. Mistaken about the amount of moderation that people want. Both lawmakers and the average citizen want more moderation than a common carrier is allowed to engage in, which brings us once more back to my question: do you trust Cruz and Pelosi to develop a moderation framework? I already know the answer. You don't. What you appear to want is a form of no-moderation absolutism that forces these companies to promote all speech that isn't harassment or pornography. The problem with that is that, from a profit perspective, most users of those systems (and transitively, most advertisers) don't want to be associated with that kind of content. The practical result would be a mass exodus from these platforms to other, different, new forms of social media that avoid being classified as common carriers (or do things to avoid the broad section 230 issues, perhaps by being even more highly moderated and small-group oriented or totally private, like discord). Maybe that's a win for some people, but if your goal is popular unmoderated platforms, that's not what you'll get, because that's not what consumers want.

stale2002 5y ago
> You're suggesting that by opting into a common carrier status, they gain what? It means that they can't be sued for content on their platform. If they do not have section 230 protections, every piece of content on the platform, they would be responsible for. And if they then choose to be a common carrier, they also get that immunity from being sued. There are 2 different ways of recieving this immunity to lawsuits. And if you take away way 1, which is section 230, then their only option is to take way 2, which is by being a common carrier. > but if they choose not to moderate, they aren't liable. The point would be to strongly incentivize them to respect the user's choice of moderation, common carrier laws, are the way that people often talk about, but sure maybe there is a 3rd way that you have found to do this. > Such as? Such as moderation that is done at the request of the user, for that specific user only. The phone company, can blocks calls if that user wants it, and common carrier laws dont stop that. If Facebook was only allowed to do moderation, at the request of that specific, individual user (or, of course, things that are already illegal.), then that solves most of these problems, where users want moderation for themselves. If we want to get more detailed here, we could imagine allowing categories of moderation, that facebook can engage in, if and only if the user opts into it. Then we don't have to define moderation, and can simply have it be whatever that specific user wants. > the average citizen want more moderation That can be done through incentivizing facebook to allow user choice, of their own moderation. Problem solved. Then they can get that moderation, and we don't have facebook forcing this moderation on others. > What you appear to want is a form of no-moderation absolutism Nope. I want the moderation to be left in the hands of the specific user. Therefore, everyone gets what they wants, except facebook I guess. > most users of those systems And yet, the phone system works perfectly fine. I don't particularly care if the phone companies are mad about being forced to follow certain laws. We wouldn't have to make laws, if they wanted to follow them.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > It means that they can't be sued for content on their platform. If they do not have section 230 protections, every piece of content on the platform, they would be responsible for. No! See Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe [0], which predates Section 230. If you do zero moderation, you are not liable for user generated content period. Section 230 creates a good-faith protection so that if you do choose to moderate some content, you don't become liable for failing to moderate the rest. The legislative history of section 230 is literally that without it, companies were liable for user generated content only if they tried to moderate, and lawmakers wished to encourage companies to moderate content > Such as moderation that is done at the request of the user, for that specific user only. The phone company, can blocks calls if that user wants it, and common carrier laws dont stop that. This is not "moderation" in the common use. In the context of facebook, this would be that "I'm unable to block another user", which is silly (and perhaps should reveal to you why trying to shoehorn Facebook into a common carrier doesn't make sense). > That can be done through incentivizing facebook to allow user choice, of their own moderation. Problem solved. Then they can get that moderation, and we don't have facebook forcing this moderation on others. Facebook already allows users to block other users and pages. All of the options you want are already available. You're suggesting a strict reduction in moderation tools, and claiming that this will solve everything the way everyone wants. So let me pose a simple question: how does your approach address coordinated misinformation campaigns? Say I come along tomorrow and start spreading lies about how and when voting works. I'm so effective at this that turnout next year is significantly lower because people are confused. I haven't done anything illegal. Can Facebook remove my content? It's actively and demonstrably harming the democratic process by preventing people from voting. What should we do? > And yet, the phone system works perfectly fine. I basically disagree here. Spam is a much larger problem on my phone than anywhere else. Plus, due to the implicit attributes of the phone system, things like spam and misinformation are handled by being crimes on the part of the caller. In other words, Ben Shapiro can post whatever he wants on Facebook, but if he were to call every American citizen and try to share the same information, he would be a crime. Not because of the information, but because sharing things widely via the phone system is essentially illegal. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.

stale2002 5y ago

> You're suggesting that by opting into a common carrier status, they gain what? It means that they can't be sued for content on their platform. If they do not have section 230 protections, every piece of content on the platform, they would be responsible for. And if they then choose to be a common carrier, they also get that immunity from being sued. There are 2 different ways of recieving this immunity to lawsuits. And if you take away way 1, which is section 230, then their only option is to take way 2, which is by being a common carrier. > but if they choose not to moderate, they aren't liable. The point would be to strongly incentivize them to respect the user's choice of moderation, common carrier laws, are the way that people often talk about, but sure maybe there is a 3rd way that you have found to do this. > Such as? Such as moderation that is done at the request of the user, for that specific user only. The phone company, can blocks calls if that user wants it, and common carrier laws dont stop that. If Facebook was only allowed to do moderation, at the request of that specific, individual user (or, of course, things that are already illegal.), then that solves most of these problems, where users want moderation for themselves. If we want to get more detailed here, we could imagine allowing categories of moderation, that facebook can engage in, if and only if the user opts into it. Then we don't have to define moderation, and can simply have it be whatever that specific user wants. > the average citizen want more moderation That can be done through incentivizing facebook to allow user choice, of their own moderation. Problem solved. Then they can get that moderation, and we don't have facebook forcing this moderation on others. > What you appear to want is a form of no-moderation absolutism Nope. I want the moderation to be left in the hands of the specific user. Therefore, everyone gets what they wants, except facebook I guess. > most users of those systems And yet, the phone system works perfectly fine. I don't particularly care if the phone companies are mad about being forced to follow certain laws. We wouldn't have to make laws, if they wanted to follow them.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> It means that they can't be sued for content on their platform. If they do not have section 230 protections, every piece of content on the platform, they would be responsible for. No! See Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe [0], which predates Section 230. If you do zero moderation, you are not liable for user generated content period. Section 230 creates a good-faith protection so that if you do choose to moderate some content, you don't become liable for failing to moderate the rest. The legislative history of section 230 is literally that without it, companies were liable for user generated content only if they tried to moderate, and lawmakers wished to encourage companies to moderate content > Such as moderation that is done at the request of the user, for that specific user only. The phone company, can blocks calls if that user wants it, and common carrier laws dont stop that. This is not "moderation" in the common use. In the context of facebook, this would be that "I'm unable to block another user", which is silly (and perhaps should reveal to you why trying to shoehorn Facebook into a common carrier doesn't make sense). > That can be done through incentivizing facebook to allow user choice, of their own moderation. Problem solved. Then they can get that moderation, and we don't have facebook forcing this moderation on others. Facebook already allows users to block other users and pages. All of the options you want are already available. You're suggesting a strict reduction in moderation tools, and claiming that this will solve everything the way everyone wants. So let me pose a simple question: how does your approach address coordinated misinformation campaigns? Say I come along tomorrow and start spreading lies about how and when voting works. I'm so effective at this that turnout next year is significantly lower because people are confused. I haven't done anything illegal. Can Facebook remove my content? It's actively and demonstrably harming the democratic process by preventing people from voting. What should we do? > And yet, the phone system works perfectly fine. I basically disagree here. Spam is a much larger problem on my phone than anywhere else. Plus, due to the implicit attributes of the phone system, things like spam and misinformation are handled by being crimes on the part of the caller. In other words, Ben Shapiro can post whatever he wants on Facebook, but if he were to call every American citizen and try to share the same information, he would be a crime. Not because of the information, but because sharing things widely via the phone system is essentially illegal. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.