5 ms·

That is not what free speech means. Why should the publisher be liable for the posts of their commenters? If that were the case worldwide, we would essentially

That is not what free speech means. Why should the publisher be liable for the posts of their commenters? If that were the case worldwide, we would essentially see the end of communication on the internet.

caf 4y ago
Because they're participating in the dissemination of those posts? If you send a defamatory "letter to the editor" to a traditional newspaper and they publish it, they'll be on the hook as well.
- mikebenfield 4y ago
  So if I defame someone in this comment, you believe Y Combinator should be held liable?
  - Normille 4y ago
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    *OBLIGATORY IANAL!* If we were to apply US law, specifically the infamous "Section 230", then that would depend on whether Y Combinator actively engages in moderation (aka editorializing) of comments. If Y Combinator only engages in moderation of comments merely to satisfy other legal requirements (eg: remove illegal materials), then Y Combinator is a platform and cannot be held liable for comments. If Y Combinator engages in moderation of comments beyond any requirements mandated by law (eg: remove some comments because the moderators don't like them), then Y Combinator is a publisher editorializing its content and can be held liable for comments. A simplification is if Y Combinator has anything to do with a comment other than blindly disseminating it, then Y Combinator can be held liable for the comment. If not, whoever wrote the comment is liable. And yes, if you think social media is getting away with moderating and editorializing its contents (eg: "this is disinformation" notices) while evading any and all liability under the guise of being a platform, you are absolutely right.
    - krapp 4y ago
      https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
    - detaro 4y ago
      > If Y Combinator engages in moderation of comments beyond any requirements mandated by law (eg: remove some comments because the moderators don't like them), then Y Combinator is a publisher editorializing its content and can be held liable for comments. Just because many people wish Section 230 says that, it doesn't. The the contrary it gives fairly broad protection to moderation efforts and does not say that moderation amounts to becoming a publisher. (hence various people calling for changes to this, restricting platforms ability to moderate)
  - caf 4y ago
    If it's drawn to their attention and they don't remove it, that seems reasonable.
    - Ajedi32 4y ago
      But doesn't that effectively deprive the commenter of their legal rights? Instead of suing the commenter for defamation and them then having the opportunity to defend themselves in court, you can just threaten to sue Y Combinator who will then remove the comment without any due process. Unlike the person who posted the comment, Y Combinator has no particular reason to care whether a particular comment stays up; certainly not enough to go to court over it at any rate.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        How can a random commenter on HN have legal rights over Y Combinator? Clearly this site is a private organization and not run via the authority of the government.
        Ajedi32 4y ago
        That's precisely my point. By making Y Combinator the target of the lawsuits, you would deprive the actual accused person of the ability to defend themselves when Y Combinator inevitably capitulates. I can mount a legal defense against a defamation lawsuit; I can't mount a legal defense against Y Combinator deleting my comments because they don't feel like going to court on my behalf.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        What are you speaking of? who is defending themselves against who?
        Ajedi32 4y ago
        Let's say I post a comment on Hacker News critical of some big megacorp. Megacorp threatens to sue YCombinator if they don't take down my comments. Hacker News deletes my comment because they don't want to get into a legal fight with Megacorp over a random comment. I can't sue Hacker News because they have a right to delete my comments for any reason, and I can't sue Megacorp because they didn't delete my comment, they just asked Hacker News to delete it. I'm SOL. Contrast that to the following: I post a comment on Hacker News critical of some big megacorp. Megacorp can't credibly threaten to sue YCombinator over that because they are legally protected from being sued over the actions of their users. Megacorp sues me instead. I now have the ability to defend myself in court against Megacorp should I choose to.
- usednet 4y ago
  You cannot liken internet comment sections to individually selected letters to the editor. We have seen judicial precedent that social media functions more as a public forum than editorialized publications. It is an impossible burden for websites to individually review every single comment - it would be unimaginably damaging to freedom of speech and the dissemination of information worldwide.
  - alkonaut 4y ago
    > It is an impossible burden for websites to individually review every single comment Yes. So they don't have comment sections or they have expensively moderated comment sections. Both are preferable to unmoderated comment sections. I thought this had been the norm in many countries for years now? Note that newspaper sites are very different from any random "forum". They typically enjoy very special legal protections and in return have legal responsibilities with a responsible publisher. This meant that they review "letters to the editor" and take responsibility for them before publishing. And of course they can't do that with the comment section under an article online. And the simple solution is: for these specific types of publishers, just skip having comments or moderate the comments like the paper content is moderated.
    - topgun77 4y ago
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      > This meant that they review "letters to the editor" and take responsibility for them before publishing. The reader's letters editor reads the letter, and decides whether to publish it. The paper takes responsibility. The comments editor reads the comment, and decides whether to publish it. The website takes responsibility. I really can't see the difference.
      - simiones 4y ago
        The "comments editor" is normally called a "moderator" in the web, but yes, there really is no difference. Now, if by "comments editor" you mean the person that wrote the comment and hit "comment" on the site, that is perfectly equivalent to the person sending the letter to the editor, but has 0% equivalence to the person deciding whether the letter will be published. When you comment on a site, the mechanism goes your computer -> server -> other users. There is no obligation for the server to make it available to other users just because it accepted your request. And indeed, the vast vast vast majority of sites on the internet that accept user content (far more than 99.9%) engage in moderation - some before the fact (moderator must approve content before it is published to other users), some after the fact (moderator sometimes deletes content that was previously published).

caf 4y ago

Because they're participating in the dissemination of those posts? If you send a defamatory "letter to the editor" to a traditional newspaper and they publish it, they'll be on the hook as well.

mikebenfield 4y ago
So if I defame someone in this comment, you believe Y Combinator should be held liable?
- Normille 4y ago
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  *OBLIGATORY IANAL!* If we were to apply US law, specifically the infamous "Section 230", then that would depend on whether Y Combinator actively engages in moderation (aka editorializing) of comments. If Y Combinator only engages in moderation of comments merely to satisfy other legal requirements (eg: remove illegal materials), then Y Combinator is a platform and cannot be held liable for comments. If Y Combinator engages in moderation of comments beyond any requirements mandated by law (eg: remove some comments because the moderators don't like them), then Y Combinator is a publisher editorializing its content and can be held liable for comments. A simplification is if Y Combinator has anything to do with a comment other than blindly disseminating it, then Y Combinator can be held liable for the comment. If not, whoever wrote the comment is liable. And yes, if you think social media is getting away with moderating and editorializing its contents (eg: "this is disinformation" notices) while evading any and all liability under the guise of being a platform, you are absolutely right.
  - krapp 4y ago
    https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
  - detaro 4y ago
    > If Y Combinator engages in moderation of comments beyond any requirements mandated by law (eg: remove some comments because the moderators don't like them), then Y Combinator is a publisher editorializing its content and can be held liable for comments. Just because many people wish Section 230 says that, it doesn't. The the contrary it gives fairly broad protection to moderation efforts and does not say that moderation amounts to becoming a publisher. (hence various people calling for changes to this, restricting platforms ability to moderate)
- caf 4y ago
  If it's drawn to their attention and they don't remove it, that seems reasonable.
  - Ajedi32 4y ago
    But doesn't that effectively deprive the commenter of their legal rights? Instead of suing the commenter for defamation and them then having the opportunity to defend themselves in court, you can just threaten to sue Y Combinator who will then remove the comment without any due process. Unlike the person who posted the comment, Y Combinator has no particular reason to care whether a particular comment stays up; certainly not enough to go to court over it at any rate.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      How can a random commenter on HN have legal rights over Y Combinator? Clearly this site is a private organization and not run via the authority of the government.
      - Ajedi32 4y ago
        That's precisely my point. By making Y Combinator the target of the lawsuits, you would deprive the actual accused person of the ability to defend themselves when Y Combinator inevitably capitulates. I can mount a legal defense against a defamation lawsuit; I can't mount a legal defense against Y Combinator deleting my comments because they don't feel like going to court on my behalf.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        What are you speaking of? who is defending themselves against who?
        Ajedi32 4y ago
        Let's say I post a comment on Hacker News critical of some big megacorp. Megacorp threatens to sue YCombinator if they don't take down my comments. Hacker News deletes my comment because they don't want to get into a legal fight with Megacorp over a random comment. I can't sue Hacker News because they have a right to delete my comments for any reason, and I can't sue Megacorp because they didn't delete my comment, they just asked Hacker News to delete it. I'm SOL. Contrast that to the following: I post a comment on Hacker News critical of some big megacorp. Megacorp can't credibly threaten to sue YCombinator over that because they are legally protected from being sued over the actions of their users. Megacorp sues me instead. I now have the ability to defend myself in court against Megacorp should I choose to.
usednet 4y ago
You cannot liken internet comment sections to individually selected letters to the editor. We have seen judicial precedent that social media functions more as a public forum than editorialized publications. It is an impossible burden for websites to individually review every single comment - it would be unimaginably damaging to freedom of speech and the dissemination of information worldwide.
- alkonaut 4y ago
  > It is an impossible burden for websites to individually review every single comment Yes. So they don't have comment sections or they have expensively moderated comment sections. Both are preferable to unmoderated comment sections. I thought this had been the norm in many countries for years now? Note that newspaper sites are very different from any random "forum". They typically enjoy very special legal protections and in return have legal responsibilities with a responsible publisher. This meant that they review "letters to the editor" and take responsibility for them before publishing. And of course they can't do that with the comment section under an article online. And the simple solution is: for these specific types of publishers, just skip having comments or moderate the comments like the paper content is moderated.
  - topgun77 4y ago
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > This meant that they review "letters to the editor" and take responsibility for them before publishing. The reader's letters editor reads the letter, and decides whether to publish it. The paper takes responsibility. The comments editor reads the comment, and decides whether to publish it. The website takes responsibility. I really can't see the difference.
    - simiones 4y ago
      The "comments editor" is normally called a "moderator" in the web, but yes, there really is no difference. Now, if by "comments editor" you mean the person that wrote the comment and hit "comment" on the site, that is perfectly equivalent to the person sending the letter to the editor, but has 0% equivalence to the person deciding whether the letter will be published. When you comment on a site, the mechanism goes your computer -> server -> other users. There is no obligation for the server to make it available to other users just because it accepted your request. And indeed, the vast vast vast majority of sites on the internet that accept user content (far more than 99.9%) engage in moderation - some before the fact (moderator must approve content before it is published to other users), some after the fact (moderator sometimes deletes content that was previously published).