3 ms·

> 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 no

by 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
  > . If you do zero moderation, you are not liable for user generated content period Ok sure, whatever. But the point would be to put facebook in a position where they are only doing moderation that a user is requesting that they do. We can use common carrier laws, or we can use some different legal precedent. Thats that goal. The specific method, or process, isn't really the main point. > you're suggesting a strict reduction in moderation tools, and claiming that this will solve everything the way everyone wants. I am suggesting that users should be allowed to have voluntary choices about what moderation they want to have, as it relates to them, without facebook forcing those decisions on the user. > All of the options you want are already available No, users still are forced to accept facebooks choosen moderation preferences. That can't choose to opt out of Facebook's censorship or moderation, if they voluntarily choose to subscribe to certain content. > solve everything the way everyone wants. It will solve what a lot of people want. Sure, I am sure that there are people who are just explicitly pro-censorship, and want the 1st amendment to be removed, and want the government to ban all opposing political opinions. But there are also a lot of people who don't want facebook to be forcing users to accept certain moderation, and instead want users to be in control of what they see. > how does your approach address coordinated misinformation campaigns? If something is so bad, that it needs to be censored, then that is what the government is for. Terrorist threats are already illegal, for example. Backdoor censorship isn't the way to go. If you really believe that mis-information is so bad, that it needs to be stopped, by these types of methods, then the onus should be on you to gather enough support, to get around the protections of the 1st amendment. Checks and balances are difficult to get around for a reason. And if you can't get around these checks and balances, well thats the point of those checks and balances. > I haven't done anything illegal Well thats life. You are trying to backdoor your way to try to get stuff censored, because you aren't able to convince the government to do it. We don't need this backdoor method of supporting censorship. > Spam is a much larger problem on my phone than anywhere else There is nothing illegal about phone companies offering additional, voluntary methods, of allowing users to choose more things to be moderated for themselves. Such problems could be solved that way. By facebook, or whoever, offering voluntary programs, to block certain types or categories of things, if the user chooses to opt in to that form of moderation. > Ben Shapiro can post whatever he wants on Facebook You don't have to listen to Ben Sharpiro if you don't want to, in this situation. Instead, you could just voluntarily choose to subscribe to a "ban right wingers" block list, or whatever voluntary algorithm that the user opts in to.

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
> . If you do zero moderation, you are not liable for user generated content period Ok sure, whatever. But the point would be to put facebook in a position where they are only doing moderation that a user is requesting that they do. We can use common carrier laws, or we can use some different legal precedent. Thats that goal. The specific method, or process, isn't really the main point. > you're suggesting a strict reduction in moderation tools, and claiming that this will solve everything the way everyone wants. I am suggesting that users should be allowed to have voluntary choices about what moderation they want to have, as it relates to them, without facebook forcing those decisions on the user. > All of the options you want are already available No, users still are forced to accept facebooks choosen moderation preferences. That can't choose to opt out of Facebook's censorship or moderation, if they voluntarily choose to subscribe to certain content. > solve everything the way everyone wants. It will solve what a lot of people want. Sure, I am sure that there are people who are just explicitly pro-censorship, and want the 1st amendment to be removed, and want the government to ban all opposing political opinions. But there are also a lot of people who don't want facebook to be forcing users to accept certain moderation, and instead want users to be in control of what they see. > how does your approach address coordinated misinformation campaigns? If something is so bad, that it needs to be censored, then that is what the government is for. Terrorist threats are already illegal, for example. Backdoor censorship isn't the way to go. If you really believe that mis-information is so bad, that it needs to be stopped, by these types of methods, then the onus should be on you to gather enough support, to get around the protections of the 1st amendment. Checks and balances are difficult to get around for a reason. And if you can't get around these checks and balances, well thats the point of those checks and balances. > I haven't done anything illegal Well thats life. You are trying to backdoor your way to try to get stuff censored, because you aren't able to convince the government to do it. We don't need this backdoor method of supporting censorship. > Spam is a much larger problem on my phone than anywhere else There is nothing illegal about phone companies offering additional, voluntary methods, of allowing users to choose more things to be moderated for themselves. Such problems could be solved that way. By facebook, or whoever, offering voluntary programs, to block certain types or categories of things, if the user chooses to opt in to that form of moderation. > Ben Shapiro can post whatever he wants on Facebook You don't have to listen to Ben Sharpiro if you don't want to, in this situation. Instead, you could just voluntarily choose to subscribe to a "ban right wingers" block list, or whatever voluntary algorithm that the user opts in to.