4 ms·

Yes. This is why all the people that copy-pasta "you're wrong about section 230"[1] on HN are missing the point. Even if the law doesn't say "Once a company lik

by fouric 5y ago

Yes. This is why all the people that copy-pasta "you're wrong about section 230"[1] on HN are missing the point. Even if the law doesn't say "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher" - that's still a moral position that many people (including me) take. Like you said, "If you centralize, you own the platform - the good & the bad." and I would extend that to "You can either choose moderation or waiving liability, but not both, because that's morally wrong (or, selfish/inconsistent/harmful/unfair)." [1] 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...

systemvoltage 5y ago
Well put, this is a great summary. I’m starting to think how we scorn at oil companies for spilling oil in the gulf, give them a small slap on the wrist for environmental damage, and yet these adtech behemoths continue to erode society, mutual trust, democracy and social well-being while reaping enormous amount of profits. No slap on the wrist, but a mild stare at best.
- mrRandomGuy 5y ago
  Getting down voted because you spoke the truth it seems?
  - fouric 5y ago
    Complaining about downvotes is explicitly discouraged on HN: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."[1] I didn't downvote GP - indeed, I can't, as it's a reply to my comment. My guess for why it was downvoted is because it's not directly connected to my point. I was trying to say "with great power comes great responsibility", but it's not clear that that principle is necessarily being violated with the examples given by GP. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - mrRandomGuy 5y ago
      ok
OminousWeapons 5y ago
I don't think this is reasonable because it seems to place enormous regulatory burdens on almost all businesses depending on how you define moderation. For example, if I am a physical business that has a code of conduct banning certain behavior (which I would say is analogous to moderation), am I now liable whenever someone doesn't adhere to it and I don't catch it? If I am a small forum, am I now liable for policing potentially hundreds of users if I have any sort of eula?
weeblewobble 5y ago
I don't think people like that are missing the point. AFAIK the concept of platforms vs. publishers with regard to liability comes from a misunderstanding of S230. Some people got attached to the idea and have backfilled a moral position, but I still think it's worth pointing out that it stems from a misunderstanding. To me, the position that a platform cannot morally moderate some content without incurring liability for all other content is rather extreme and the precepts are non-obvious. Presumably you mean moral liability rather than legal liability? Can you elaborate on the precepts here? * what does moral liability mean? is the platform equally morally liable as the poster, or is the liability split between them? * where does this liability attach? how big do you have to be, or how much of a hand to you have to play in dissemination of content to incur moral liability? * and finally, why does choosing to moderate some content but not others change the moral calculus? This is totally non-obvious to me and TBH doesn't make a lot of sense.
dllthomas 5y ago
The "publisher vs platform" distinction has been sitting weirdly with me, lately. The canonical examples of each are newspaper (publisher) vs newsstand (platform), but if I am running a newsstand and I choose not to carry the Times, that doesn't make me liable for the content of the Bugle.
stickfigure 5y ago
"I'm opposed to slavery advertised on Facebook, but willing to tolerate it on decentralized platforms" is a fair and consistent statement, but doesn't sound like the kind of rallying cry that brings out pitchforks. It's not about human trafficking, it's about who should control the internet. Doesn't this seem a little disingenuous, or at least warrant dialing back the outrage knob a little?
mrtranscendence 5y ago
I'd like to hear more about why it would be a moral failing to moderate content without assuming liability. If this were codified into law it would on a practical level eliminate the possibility of moderation in many cases. That feels like a net loss to me, since I'd like to remain able to visit online spaces with the expectation that I won't be served certain kinds of content (hate speech, animal slaughtering, smaller things like political positions I find objectionable after I've had a hard day and just want to relax, whatever). That doesn't mean it's moral, I suppose, but it feels like an uphill battle to prove that it's not. What are the harms that derive from allowing platforms to moderate without assuming liability? What's the alternative? Either they lock down everything and have human moderators approve all speech submitted to the platform, which seems draconian and expensive, or they let everything through, which reduces the usefulness of the platform and forces them to host evil content or content that may cause more harm than good (e.g. medical disinformation). Either one seems worse than allowing moderation while waiving liability. Further, this flies in the face of moral custom. Although there can be legal penalties under some scenarios, we generally don't find people very much at fault for illegal acts that take place in spaces they control unless they had knowledge of or participated in those acts. If my fiancee starts dealing drugs out of my house, and keeps it secret to me, I shouldn't be on the hook for that. And yet I can choose to "moderate" who does or does not live in my house. What's different here? Facebook owns the space, would prefer not to serve hate speech, and 99.9% of its users would prefer not to be served hate speech. What's the harm? What moral principle should prevent them from doing so? Finally, what about sub-platforms moderated by users? Can reddit morally allow subreddits to moderate? If they can't, so much the worse; but if they can how is that different in principle from reddit doing the moderating?

by fouric 5y ago

systemvoltage 5y ago

Well put, this is a great summary. I’m starting to think how we scorn at oil companies for spilling oil in the gulf, give them a small slap on the wrist for environmental damage, and yet these adtech behemoths continue to erode society, mutual trust, democracy and social well-being while reaping enormous amount of profits. No slap on the wrist, but a mild stare at best.

mrRandomGuy 5y ago
Getting down voted because you spoke the truth it seems?
- fouric 5y ago
  Complaining about downvotes is explicitly discouraged on HN: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."[1] I didn't downvote GP - indeed, I can't, as it's a reply to my comment. My guess for why it was downvoted is because it's not directly connected to my point. I was trying to say "with great power comes great responsibility", but it's not clear that that principle is necessarily being violated with the examples given by GP. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mrRandomGuy 5y ago
    ok

OminousWeapons 5y ago

I don't think this is reasonable because it seems to place enormous regulatory burdens on almost all businesses depending on how you define moderation. For example, if I am a physical business that has a code of conduct banning certain behavior (which I would say is analogous to moderation), am I now liable whenever someone doesn't adhere to it and I don't catch it? If I am a small forum, am I now liable for policing potentially hundreds of users if I have any sort of eula?

weeblewobble 5y ago

I don't think people like that are missing the point. AFAIK the concept of platforms vs. publishers with regard to liability comes from a misunderstanding of S230. Some people got attached to the idea and have backfilled a moral position, but I still think it's worth pointing out that it stems from a misunderstanding. To me, the position that a platform cannot morally moderate some content without incurring liability for all other content is rather extreme and the precepts are non-obvious. Presumably you mean moral liability rather than legal liability? Can you elaborate on the precepts here? * what does moral liability mean? is the platform equally morally liable as the poster, or is the liability split between them? * where does this liability attach? how big do you have to be, or how much of a hand to you have to play in dissemination of content to incur moral liability? * and finally, why does choosing to moderate some content but not others change the moral calculus? This is totally non-obvious to me and TBH doesn't make a lot of sense.

dllthomas 5y ago

The "publisher vs platform" distinction has been sitting weirdly with me, lately. The canonical examples of each are newspaper (publisher) vs newsstand (platform), but if I am running a newsstand and I choose not to carry the Times, that doesn't make me liable for the content of the Bugle.

stickfigure 5y ago

"I'm opposed to slavery advertised on Facebook, but willing to tolerate it on decentralized platforms" is a fair and consistent statement, but doesn't sound like the kind of rallying cry that brings out pitchforks. It's not about human trafficking, it's about who should control the internet. Doesn't this seem a little disingenuous, or at least warrant dialing back the outrage knob a little?

mrtranscendence 5y ago

I'd like to hear more about why it would be a moral failing to moderate content without assuming liability. If this were codified into law it would on a practical level eliminate the possibility of moderation in many cases. That feels like a net loss to me, since I'd like to remain able to visit online spaces with the expectation that I won't be served certain kinds of content (hate speech, animal slaughtering, smaller things like political positions I find objectionable after I've had a hard day and just want to relax, whatever). That doesn't mean it's moral, I suppose, but it feels like an uphill battle to prove that it's not. What are the harms that derive from allowing platforms to moderate without assuming liability? What's the alternative? Either they lock down everything and have human moderators approve all speech submitted to the platform, which seems draconian and expensive, or they let everything through, which reduces the usefulness of the platform and forces them to host evil content or content that may cause more harm than good (e.g. medical disinformation). Either one seems worse than allowing moderation while waiving liability. Further, this flies in the face of moral custom. Although there can be legal penalties under some scenarios, we generally don't find people very much at fault for illegal acts that take place in spaces they control unless they had knowledge of or participated in those acts. If my fiancee starts dealing drugs out of my house, and keeps it secret to me, I shouldn't be on the hook for that. And yet I can choose to "moderate" who does or does not live in my house. What's different here? Facebook owns the space, would prefer not to serve hate speech, and 99.9% of its users would prefer not to be served hate speech. What's the harm? What moral principle should prevent them from doing so? Finally, what about sub-platforms moderated by users? Can reddit morally allow subreddits to moderate? If they can't, so much the worse; but if they can how is that different in principle from reddit doing the moderating?