3 ms·

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 t

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".
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        >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. You ignored the point. Which is I am responsible for what I say, regardless of where it's published online, not the platform that hosts my words. >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. If it was just user posts people would have left. Who says that "official/governmental first parties, politicians, heads of state, scientists , and random users" can't be legally challenged? All section 230 does is keep you from suing the third party. You can sue any or all of the folks you mention every day of the week and twice on Sundays (okay, probably not at all on Sundays, as most civil courts in the US are closed on Sunday, but I trust you take my point). >These assymetries no longer make sense imho. This is a new era where everyone, personally is a publisher. And you can sue anyone and everyone for defamation if you wish. I'm sure your lawyer will absolutely adore you if you do. Just make sure that retainer check doesn't bounce! >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)". Actually, Section 230 makes no such distinction. If you are the party making the statement, Section 230 does not apply. Please see here[0] for more details. [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...

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".
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >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. You ignored the point. Which is I am responsible for what I say, regardless of where it's published online, not the platform that hosts my words. >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. If it was just user posts people would have left. Who says that "official/governmental first parties, politicians, heads of state, scientists , and random users" can't be legally challenged? All section 230 does is keep you from suing the third party. You can sue any or all of the folks you mention every day of the week and twice on Sundays (okay, probably not at all on Sundays, as most civil courts in the US are closed on Sunday, but I trust you take my point). >These assymetries no longer make sense imho. This is a new era where everyone, personally is a publisher. And you can sue anyone and everyone for defamation if you wish. I'm sure your lawyer will absolutely adore you if you do. Just make sure that retainer check doesn't bounce! >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)". Actually, Section 230 makes no such distinction. If you are the party making the statement, Section 230 does not apply. Please see here[0] for more details. [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...