5 ms·

This isn't really about section 230, this is about the first amendment. You cannot, and will not, ever successfully pass an enforced law that requires private

This isn't really about section 230, this is about the first amendment. You cannot, and will not, ever successfully pass an enforced law that requires private companies to maintain content they themselves did not produce on their website against their will. You can repeal section 230, and the first amendment will still protect every company in the US from doing what you want them to do. There is no version of this where you win, and anti-vax or overtly hateful/conservative content sticks around on YouTube.

matthewmarkus 5y ago
The point of repealing section 230 is to end YouTube as we know it. Basically, YouTube becomes the Washington Post and can carry fully moderated content that it selects and publishes. YouTube's current business model only exists by legislative fiat. It's time to give power back to the courts and reinstate the precedent of Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  Literally impossible as long as the First Amendment exists. You cannot compel speech with legislation the way you apparently want to. Section 230 is just a way to shortcut litigation, the First Amendment is ultimately the protector of YouTube, and will remain so as long as the United States remains a country. Repealing 230 would just trigger a new set of lawsuits, one of which would end up in front of the Supreme Court, who would then rule it as unconstitutional to force YouTube to publish content it doesn't want to, and we'll be right back where we started, just now with precedent in a Supreme Court case. https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/05/section-230-as-first-amendment-rule/ https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/05/section-230-as-first-am... https://www.lawfareblog.com/wall-street-journal-misreads-section-230-and-first-amendment https://www.lawfareblog.com/wall-street-journal-misreads-sec... https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online/vol95/iss1/3/ https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online/vol95/iss1/3/ https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section-230-critics-are-forgetting-about-the-first-amendment.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section-230-critics-are-... You are tilting at a windmill, friend.
  - irl_chad 5y ago
    The idea isn’t repealing 230 - it’s to recognise any platform that’s manually curating content as a publisher. Then if that publisher hosts illegal content, they’re liable, because if they can curate some of the content, they should be responsible for all of it. Also political feasibility in the USA isn’t the end-all be-all. YouTube certainly wants to do business in other countries/regions - such as the EU. Google is a public company, and as such it’s executives have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. Right now, since other megacorps want Google to censor content so their ads don’t run alongside XYZ content that you don’t like, Google is following their fiduciary duties. But if a regulator steps in, it becomes a matter if “oh shit doing business in the EU is more important than doing business with cocacola”
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      Curation is not, has not, and will never be, the bar for determining what is and isn't a platform or a publisher. Curation is an expression of free speech, which is different from the role a publisher plays in works it publishes. Your entire argument hinges on people not realizing there's a specific legal definition of the word "publisher", which means that no matter what politicians you convince to do what you want, it will never function as expected in the judiciary.
  - matthewmarkus 5y ago
    I don't want to compel speech. I want to reattach a cost or liability to YouTube that was removed via state power. Remember, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. "held that Prodigy was liable as the publisher of the content created by its users because it exercised editorial control over the messages on their bulletin boards in three ways: 1) by posting Content Guidelines for users, 2) by enforcing those guidelines with 'Board Leaders', and 3) by utilizing screening software designed to remove offensive language." The State removed the above liability via Section 230, which paved the way for YouTube to become the monolith it is today. Reattaching liability to YouTube would force it to choose between an editorial model (Prodigy) or a platform model (CompuServe). It would not get the luxury of the editorial model without paying the corresponding costs of that model. In other words, it would put YouTube on the same playing field as the Washington Post and other traditional news sources.

matthewmarkus 5y ago

The point of repealing section 230 is to end YouTube as we know it. Basically, YouTube becomes the Washington Post and can carry fully moderated content that it selects and publishes. YouTube's current business model only exists by legislative fiat. It's time to give power back to the courts and reinstate the precedent of Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....

TameAntelope 5y ago
Literally impossible as long as the First Amendment exists. You cannot compel speech with legislation the way you apparently want to. Section 230 is just a way to shortcut litigation, the First Amendment is ultimately the protector of YouTube, and will remain so as long as the United States remains a country. Repealing 230 would just trigger a new set of lawsuits, one of which would end up in front of the Supreme Court, who would then rule it as unconstitutional to force YouTube to publish content it doesn't want to, and we'll be right back where we started, just now with precedent in a Supreme Court case. https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/05/section-230-as-first-amendment-rule/ https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/05/section-230-as-first-am... https://www.lawfareblog.com/wall-street-journal-misreads-section-230-and-first-amendment https://www.lawfareblog.com/wall-street-journal-misreads-sec... https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online/vol95/iss1/3/ https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online/vol95/iss1/3/ https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section-230-critics-are-forgetting-about-the-first-amendment.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section-230-critics-are-... You are tilting at a windmill, friend.
- irl_chad 5y ago
  The idea isn’t repealing 230 - it’s to recognise any platform that’s manually curating content as a publisher. Then if that publisher hosts illegal content, they’re liable, because if they can curate some of the content, they should be responsible for all of it. Also political feasibility in the USA isn’t the end-all be-all. YouTube certainly wants to do business in other countries/regions - such as the EU. Google is a public company, and as such it’s executives have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. Right now, since other megacorps want Google to censor content so their ads don’t run alongside XYZ content that you don’t like, Google is following their fiduciary duties. But if a regulator steps in, it becomes a matter if “oh shit doing business in the EU is more important than doing business with cocacola”
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    Curation is not, has not, and will never be, the bar for determining what is and isn't a platform or a publisher. Curation is an expression of free speech, which is different from the role a publisher plays in works it publishes. Your entire argument hinges on people not realizing there's a specific legal definition of the word "publisher", which means that no matter what politicians you convince to do what you want, it will never function as expected in the judiciary.
- matthewmarkus 5y ago
  I don't want to compel speech. I want to reattach a cost or liability to YouTube that was removed via state power. Remember, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. "held that Prodigy was liable as the publisher of the content created by its users because it exercised editorial control over the messages on their bulletin boards in three ways: 1) by posting Content Guidelines for users, 2) by enforcing those guidelines with 'Board Leaders', and 3) by utilizing screening software designed to remove offensive language." The State removed the above liability via Section 230, which paved the way for YouTube to become the monolith it is today. Reattaching liability to YouTube would force it to choose between an editorial model (Prodigy) or a platform model (CompuServe). It would not get the luxury of the editorial model without paying the corresponding costs of that model. In other words, it would put YouTube on the same playing field as the Washington Post and other traditional news sources.