9 ms·

There are some infamous blog posts that will tell you that 230 protects websites no matter what happens. But when bad things happen and the law protects bad act

There are some infamous blog posts that will tell you that 230 protects websites no matter what happens. But when bad things happen and the law protects bad actors, then it's a bad law.

Nasrudith 5y ago
Rights protect everyone - including bad actors. Any definition of a bad law that includes rights as such is euphemistically referred to as a "different understanding". Does nobody remember Blackstone's Principles these dats in their zeal to collect scalps? A good law is one which does not punish innocents - that should be where the lines are always drawn.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  230 is not a right, it's a special exception afforded to some businesses, and not to others (newspapers). i dont think it should be held that highly. It was a temporary measure to help the internet grow, now the internet IS the media of mass manipulation
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >230 is not a right, it's a special exception afforded to some businesses Yes, section 230 is not a right. But it is afforded to everyone[0]: There is nothing in Section 230 that applies solely to big tech. Indeed, it applies to every website on the internet and every user of those websites. That means it applies to you, as well, and helps to protect your speech. It's what allows you to repeat something someone else said on Facebook and not be liable for it. It's what protects every website that has comments, or any other third-party content. It applies across the entire internet to every website and every user, and not just to big tech. [0] 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...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - cblconfederate 5y ago
      Whether the content is third-party or first-party is nowadays the same in the eyes of the end user. They 'll believe a moderated story on facebook or a moderated story on nytimes.com with almost equal frequency. Technicalities of the law aside, why the first is more equal then the other is baffling to me
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        >Whether the content is third-party or first-party is nowadays the same in the eyes of the end user. Is it? As an end user, I am acutely aware that the above is from "cblconfederate" and not Hacker News. >They 'll believe a moderated story on facebook or a moderated story on nytimes.com with almost equal frequency. The question isn't whether or not "they" (whoever "they" might be) believe it, the question is "Who is the source of the story?" If I say that you are a wife-beating, child-molesting, puppy-kicking monster, do you assume that Hacker News is responsible for that? Once you answer that question, perhaps you'll understand things a little better. Edit: Added context. Fixed punctuation.
        cblconfederate 5y ago
        > If I say that you are a wife- If you sent the content to a newspaper and they posted it in the relevant section the newspaper would be liable. Those things aren't as distinct as they were made to be. What i had in mind is the fact that on facebook you have a mix of posted newspaper articles (which are first-party elsewhere and thus someone may be legally liable for them) along with official/governmental first parties, politicians, heads of state, scientists , and random users most of which cannot be legally challenged, at all. And this is done intentionally because facebook has made great effort to get its users to read / post news articles so as to make itself a news source. Plus they apply filters and annotation to give the false impression that the information they provide is the "correct one". This is "publishing via moderating" I think 230 makes a very basic ontological distinction between "people whose opinion matters/has impact and therefore must be regulated (press)" and "people whose opinion doesnt matter (random users)". That is not so. This allows malicious actors to hide behind "i'm just a user".
danShumway 5y ago
The current case doesn't really have anything to do with Section 230 that I can see. Section 230 protects Facebook from being sued for what other people post on their website. It doesn't impact content that they themselves create. If Facebook publishes an illegal blog post or attaches its own content... I mean, it would at least need to make a case that it wasn't making the fact check itself, that this was an API or something. I'm not sure if they could pull that off or not. But in any case, Section 230 has never been a blanket law that says websites can't be sued for anything. It shields them from liability for 3rd-party content, that's it. Realistically, the reason this lawsuit is probably going to fail is because it doesn't look like the fact check in question is actually defamation. I'm not a lawyer, maybe Stossel will surprise me. But my immediate take is that I think he has a weaker case than Owens', and her defamation claims got pretty solidly rejected, and not for any 230 reasons.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The current case doesn't really have anything to do with Section 230 that I can see. It does. Though NY Times v. Sullivan maybe has more to do with it, and the basic definition of defamation may have the most do with it. > Section 230 protects Facebook from being sued for what other people post on their website. It doesn't impact content that they themselves create. Facebook’s fact-check annotation facility, like its newsfeed, is, as I understand it, algorithmically-driven promotion of third-party submitted content. It is not, in any case, first-party content (well, I mean the actual standarized portion of the annotation that links the article to the thing fact-checked is, but its association with a particular bit of content is driven by the third-party submission.) > Realistically, the reason this lawsuit is probably going to fail is because it doesn't look like the fact check in question is actually defamation. That's the most likely reason why it will fail against the creator of the fact check article. It’s failure against Facebook os overdetermined.
  - djoldman 5y ago
    I'm interested as to whether the courts would consider this fact checking content as Facebook's or a third-party's. If the third party did not explicitly cause the content to be put in this specific "fact check" area, did they create it for the purpose of libel? Going to an extreme: if Facebook pays Acme Fact check for some text that says "John is a bad lawyer" and facebook then posts that text on John's page, isnt Facebook liable whether or not they actually created the text? The text wasn't posted by Acme, it was posted by FBook.

There are some infamous blog posts that will tell you that 230 protects websites no matter what happens. But when bad things happen and the law protects bad actors, then it's a bad law.

Nasrudith 5y ago

Rights protect everyone - including bad actors. Any definition of a bad law that includes rights as such is euphemistically referred to as a "different understanding". Does nobody remember Blackstone's Principles these dats in their zeal to collect scalps? A good law is one which does not punish innocents - that should be where the lines are always drawn.

cblconfederate 5y ago
230 is not a right, it's a special exception afforded to some businesses, and not to others (newspapers). i dont think it should be held that highly. It was a temporary measure to help the internet grow, now the internet IS the media of mass manipulation
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >230 is not a right, it's a special exception afforded to some businesses Yes, section 230 is not a right. But it is afforded to everyone[0]: There is nothing in Section 230 that applies solely to big tech. Indeed, it applies to every website on the internet and every user of those websites. That means it applies to you, as well, and helps to protect your speech. It's what allows you to repeat something someone else said on Facebook and not be liable for it. It's what protects every website that has comments, or any other third-party content. It applies across the entire internet to every website and every user, and not just to big tech. [0] 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...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    Whether the content is third-party or first-party is nowadays the same in the eyes of the end user. They 'll believe a moderated story on facebook or a moderated story on nytimes.com with almost equal frequency. Technicalities of the law aside, why the first is more equal then the other is baffling to me
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >Whether the content is third-party or first-party is nowadays the same in the eyes of the end user. Is it? As an end user, I am acutely aware that the above is from "cblconfederate" and not Hacker News. >They 'll believe a moderated story on facebook or a moderated story on nytimes.com with almost equal frequency. The question isn't whether or not "they" (whoever "they" might be) believe it, the question is "Who is the source of the story?" If I say that you are a wife-beating, child-molesting, puppy-kicking monster, do you assume that Hacker News is responsible for that? Once you answer that question, perhaps you'll understand things a little better. Edit: Added context. Fixed punctuation.
      - cblconfederate 5y ago
        > If I say that you are a wife- If you sent the content to a newspaper and they posted it in the relevant section the newspaper would be liable. Those things aren't as distinct as they were made to be. What i had in mind is the fact that on facebook you have a mix of posted newspaper articles (which are first-party elsewhere and thus someone may be legally liable for them) along with official/governmental first parties, politicians, heads of state, scientists , and random users most of which cannot be legally challenged, at all. And this is done intentionally because facebook has made great effort to get its users to read / post news articles so as to make itself a news source. Plus they apply filters and annotation to give the false impression that the information they provide is the "correct one". This is "publishing via moderating" I think 230 makes a very basic ontological distinction between "people whose opinion matters/has impact and therefore must be regulated (press)" and "people whose opinion doesnt matter (random users)". That is not so. This allows malicious actors to hide behind "i'm just a user".

danShumway 5y ago

The current case doesn't really have anything to do with Section 230 that I can see. Section 230 protects Facebook from being sued for what other people post on their website. It doesn't impact content that they themselves create. If Facebook publishes an illegal blog post or attaches its own content... I mean, it would at least need to make a case that it wasn't making the fact check itself, that this was an API or something. I'm not sure if they could pull that off or not. But in any case, Section 230 has never been a blanket law that says websites can't be sued for anything. It shields them from liability for 3rd-party content, that's it. Realistically, the reason this lawsuit is probably going to fail is because it doesn't look like the fact check in question is actually defamation. I'm not a lawyer, maybe Stossel will surprise me. But my immediate take is that I think he has a weaker case than Owens', and her defamation claims got pretty solidly rejected, and not for any 230 reasons.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The current case doesn't really have anything to do with Section 230 that I can see. It does. Though NY Times v. Sullivan maybe has more to do with it, and the basic definition of defamation may have the most do with it. > Section 230 protects Facebook from being sued for what other people post on their website. It doesn't impact content that they themselves create. Facebook’s fact-check annotation facility, like its newsfeed, is, as I understand it, algorithmically-driven promotion of third-party submitted content. It is not, in any case, first-party content (well, I mean the actual standarized portion of the annotation that links the article to the thing fact-checked is, but its association with a particular bit of content is driven by the third-party submission.) > Realistically, the reason this lawsuit is probably going to fail is because it doesn't look like the fact check in question is actually defamation. That's the most likely reason why it will fail against the creator of the fact check article. It’s failure against Facebook os overdetermined.
- djoldman 5y ago
  I'm interested as to whether the courts would consider this fact checking content as Facebook's or a third-party's. If the third party did not explicitly cause the content to be put in this specific "fact check" area, did they create it for the purpose of libel? Going to an extreme: if Facebook pays Acme Fact check for some text that says "John is a bad lawyer" and facebook then posts that text on John's page, isnt Facebook liable whether or not they actually created the text? The text wasn't posted by Acme, it was posted by FBook.