7 ms·

> To me, the best way forward is to revisit the point at which you cease to be a protected service provider and instead become an unprotected publisher. The Fac

> To me, the best way forward is to revisit the point at which you cease to be a protected service provider and instead become an unprotected publisher. The Facebooks and TikToks of the world act an awful lot like publishers. Treat them like it. So do you think it would be better if Facebook didn't do any moderation at all?

ydlr 5y ago
They would still be publishers. Just (more) irresponsible publishers. I think the deciding factor should be business model. If you charge for access or place advertising beside the content, you are its publisher.
- voxic11 5y ago
  Is your ISP a publisher then? They charge for access to the content which is on the internet and provide it to you. So should they be scanning every packet to ensure it doesn't contain any defamatory content?
Jtype 5y ago
Perhaps limiting their moderation to removing entries which are actually illegal.
- voxic11 5y ago
  Yes if section 230 was repealed then removing illegal content which they have been notified of would still be required. But doing active moderation for illegal content or otherwise would make them a publisher and so they couldn't engage in such behavior without risking liability. This is exactly why 230 was created, early internet services were being sued because they attempted to actively moderate their content.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>So do you think it would be better if Facebook didn't do any moderation at all? 1) Holy strawman batman 2) If they were unmoderated or lightly moderated cesspits of degeneracy then maybe their ability to pick sides on a whim wouldn't matter. Nobody cares if 4Chan bans something or cancels someone because nobody takes platforms like that seriously in the first place.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  > So do you think it would be better if Facebook didn't do any moderation at all? I think the GP was referring to the status before Section 230, which was exactly why Section 230 was passed in the first place. The internet is a very different place now, but repealing Section 230 is likely to have a host of unintended, mostly bad consequences (while doing very little to rein in FB/GOOG et al).
Kon-Peki 5y ago
I don't really have much of an opinion on their moderation. My opinion is in regards to the other parts. When you submit some sort of content, they are analyzing it in every possible way. When you log in and view content, they are deciding what to show you and that includes showing you content that you didn't ask for as well as not showing you content you did ask for. This is all done to maximize revenue. And that's fine, they can do whatever they want (including their moderation practices). I think that they've made the decision to be in the publishing business. That's all.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- voxic11 5y ago
  > When you log in and view content, they are deciding what to show you and that includes showing you content that you didn't ask for as well as not showing you content you did ask for. Do you think google should also be held liable for showing you search results which include defamatory web sites?
  - mikecoles 5y ago
    Google does stack results. The(my) issue is when entities select what is displayed or even hosted. Defining the line isn't easy because things like ranking are involved. While ranking can be a benefit to the users, it is also used as a shield by entities that want to keep their 230 protections. I don't care that defamatory or inflammatory items are in given lists, I care that I'm being given the full list. If the list is intentionally being curated beyond what the user requested, safe search and such, then 230 protection is gone.
    - Kon-Peki 5y ago
      I don't agree with either of you. Google gives you links to other sites, which may or may not be publishers. Section 230 is meaningless in this regard. They don't need it. You have no right to be "given the full list" by anyone. Why do people keep demanding this? Make your own service and quit complaining. Some sites allow users to post content for other users to see. Section 230 allows them to filter and moderate without liability, and it allows them to make mistakes without liability too. A publisher is choosing what a user sees on their site in a manner that is different than filtering and moderation. What's different about it? Well, that's what needs to be clarified. I contend that most of the big sites are clearly publishers while enjoying Section 230 protections. They don't deserve it, and if we let them keep doing this, sites that do deserve protection are likely to lose it.

ydlr 5y ago

They would still be publishers. Just (more) irresponsible publishers. I think the deciding factor should be business model. If you charge for access or place advertising beside the content, you are its publisher.

voxic11 5y ago
Is your ISP a publisher then? They charge for access to the content which is on the internet and provide it to you. So should they be scanning every packet to ensure it doesn't contain any defamatory content?

Jtype 5y ago

Perhaps limiting their moderation to removing entries which are actually illegal.

voxic11 5y ago
Yes if section 230 was repealed then removing illegal content which they have been notified of would still be required. But doing active moderation for illegal content or otherwise would make them a publisher and so they couldn't engage in such behavior without risking liability. This is exactly why 230 was created, early internet services were being sued because they attempted to actively moderate their content.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

>So do you think it would be better if Facebook didn't do any moderation at all? 1) Holy strawman batman 2) If they were unmoderated or lightly moderated cesspits of degeneracy then maybe their ability to pick sides on a whim wouldn't matter. Nobody cares if 4Chan bans something or cancels someone because nobody takes platforms like that seriously in the first place.

disgruntledphd2 5y ago
> So do you think it would be better if Facebook didn't do any moderation at all? I think the GP was referring to the status before Section 230, which was exactly why Section 230 was passed in the first place. The internet is a very different place now, but repealing Section 230 is likely to have a host of unintended, mostly bad consequences (while doing very little to rein in FB/GOOG et al).

Kon-Peki 5y ago

I don't really have much of an opinion on their moderation. My opinion is in regards to the other parts. When you submit some sort of content, they are analyzing it in every possible way. When you log in and view content, they are deciding what to show you and that includes showing you content that you didn't ask for as well as not showing you content you did ask for. This is all done to maximize revenue. And that's fine, they can do whatever they want (including their moderation practices). I think that they've made the decision to be in the publishing business. That's all.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
voxic11 5y ago
> When you log in and view content, they are deciding what to show you and that includes showing you content that you didn't ask for as well as not showing you content you did ask for. Do you think google should also be held liable for showing you search results which include defamatory web sites?
- mikecoles 5y ago
  Google does stack results. The(my) issue is when entities select what is displayed or even hosted. Defining the line isn't easy because things like ranking are involved. While ranking can be a benefit to the users, it is also used as a shield by entities that want to keep their 230 protections. I don't care that defamatory or inflammatory items are in given lists, I care that I'm being given the full list. If the list is intentionally being curated beyond what the user requested, safe search and such, then 230 protection is gone.
  - Kon-Peki 5y ago
    I don't agree with either of you. Google gives you links to other sites, which may or may not be publishers. Section 230 is meaningless in this regard. They don't need it. You have no right to be "given the full list" by anyone. Why do people keep demanding this? Make your own service and quit complaining. Some sites allow users to post content for other users to see. Section 230 allows them to filter and moderate without liability, and it allows them to make mistakes without liability too. A publisher is choosing what a user sees on their site in a manner that is different than filtering and moderation. What's different about it? Well, that's what needs to be clarified. I contend that most of the big sites are clearly publishers while enjoying Section 230 protections. They don't deserve it, and if we let them keep doing this, sites that do deserve protection are likely to lose it.