3 ms·

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 moderate

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...
    - cblconfederate 5y ago
      > Which is I am responsible for what I say, regardless of where it's published online I believe if it is published in one of those "letters from our readers" section (where the newspaper makes editorial decisions) then they are responsible, is that not so ? I know that article btw. It's basically a list of reasons why 230 makes no sense in this age where the internet and algorithms is the dominant medium. Content is overabundant now, it doesnt matter anymore, what matters is how you shape the access to it. and to your other comment, FB and nytimes should be held to the same standards: either both of them are absolved or responsibility or both are not. Think of it this way: nytimes hires journalists to create content that promotes their favourite soccer team. They affect opinions. Facebook hires programmers who use their abundance of "user generated" content (which covers the entire spectrum of soccer fans) and mold their algorithms to promote their favourites.they affect opinions The effect is the same on society, why are they treated differently? the mechanisms shouldn't matter. If FB (or HN) is to be held at a differnt standard, they should either be "100% neutral except illegal pics" or be forced to have full transparency on all their algorithms and editing decisions. (Btw i agree with what you said about the law, i just think it's an absurd legal situation for this day and age)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  One thing that seems to be being ignored on this section 230 (by everyone) is the clause that reasonable action to remove illegal content. If in this case the content is libel, and Facebook did not attempt to remove it after being contacted, that would make them liable.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >One thing that seems to be being ignored on this section 230 (by everyone) is the clause that reasonable action to remove illegal content. If in this case the content is libel, and Facebook did not attempt to remove it after being contacted, that would make them liable. Except it's not libel until a court says it is. If I defamed/libeled you right here, right now and HN didn't immediately delete my post, would that make HN liable and hence able to be sued? If you think the answer to that question is "yes," let me know I will make statements that could be considered to be libelous by a court. Then you can sue HN (and me too, if you like. But blood from a stone and all that, eh?) and see what happens. What do you think?
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      > If I defamed/libeled you right here, right now and HN didn't immediately delete my post, would that make HN liable and hence able to be sued? That doesn't matter, and that's not what I said. What matters is what section 230 says, not what you or I think should or shouldn't happen. What matters is that if you did so and I contacted HN and informed them that illegal material is being hosted and published on their service, if they made no reasonable effort to remove it, they would be liable. That is the only point I'm making. You're arguing against someone else's (hole riddled) point, not my point. In your case I wouldn't report it because I don't particularly care, but in Stossel's case, he did and they left the content up. He has a leg to stand on, if, as you said, the fact check is found by the court to actually be libel. FYI I'm pretty sure making a positive statement claiming intent to put illegal content on HN is a bannable offense, and if you actually did say anything libelous, regardless whether HN responded to a request, I could sue you, and win, because you've explicitly confirmed that what you may or may not say in response to this was in fact intended to be libel. I'm not a litigious individual and don't really care what you say about me, but being candid, this line of discussion you're engaging in is reckless and stupid.

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...
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    > Which is I am responsible for what I say, regardless of where it's published online I believe if it is published in one of those "letters from our readers" section (where the newspaper makes editorial decisions) then they are responsible, is that not so ? I know that article btw. It's basically a list of reasons why 230 makes no sense in this age where the internet and algorithms is the dominant medium. Content is overabundant now, it doesnt matter anymore, what matters is how you shape the access to it. and to your other comment, FB and nytimes should be held to the same standards: either both of them are absolved or responsibility or both are not. Think of it this way: nytimes hires journalists to create content that promotes their favourite soccer team. They affect opinions. Facebook hires programmers who use their abundance of "user generated" content (which covers the entire spectrum of soccer fans) and mold their algorithms to promote their favourites.they affect opinions The effect is the same on society, why are they treated differently? the mechanisms shouldn't matter. If FB (or HN) is to be held at a differnt standard, they should either be "100% neutral except illegal pics" or be forced to have full transparency on all their algorithms and editing decisions. (Btw i agree with what you said about the law, i just think it's an absurd legal situation for this day and age)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
betwixthewires 5y ago
One thing that seems to be being ignored on this section 230 (by everyone) is the clause that reasonable action to remove illegal content. If in this case the content is libel, and Facebook did not attempt to remove it after being contacted, that would make them liable.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >One thing that seems to be being ignored on this section 230 (by everyone) is the clause that reasonable action to remove illegal content. If in this case the content is libel, and Facebook did not attempt to remove it after being contacted, that would make them liable. Except it's not libel until a court says it is. If I defamed/libeled you right here, right now and HN didn't immediately delete my post, would that make HN liable and hence able to be sued? If you think the answer to that question is "yes," let me know I will make statements that could be considered to be libelous by a court. Then you can sue HN (and me too, if you like. But blood from a stone and all that, eh?) and see what happens. What do you think?
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    > If I defamed/libeled you right here, right now and HN didn't immediately delete my post, would that make HN liable and hence able to be sued? That doesn't matter, and that's not what I said. What matters is what section 230 says, not what you or I think should or shouldn't happen. What matters is that if you did so and I contacted HN and informed them that illegal material is being hosted and published on their service, if they made no reasonable effort to remove it, they would be liable. That is the only point I'm making. You're arguing against someone else's (hole riddled) point, not my point. In your case I wouldn't report it because I don't particularly care, but in Stossel's case, he did and they left the content up. He has a leg to stand on, if, as you said, the fact check is found by the court to actually be libel. FYI I'm pretty sure making a positive statement claiming intent to put illegal content on HN is a bannable offense, and if you actually did say anything libelous, regardless whether HN responded to a request, I could sue you, and win, because you've explicitly confirmed that what you may or may not say in response to this was in fact intended to be libel. I'm not a litigious individual and don't really care what you say about me, but being candid, this line of discussion you're engaging in is reckless and stupid.