3 ms·

May layman's understanding of the Section 230 is that it is forcing tech companies to choose whether they want to be a Platform or not. If they choose to be a

May layman's understanding of the Section 230 is that it is forcing tech companies to choose whether they want to be a Platform or not. If they choose to be a Platform i.e. neutral to the content, then they cannot censor, but they are protected from liability of the content. On the other hand, if they choose not to be a Platform, they can censor, but then they are not protected from liability of the content. Tech companies really hate this, because they want to both be free from the liabilities and to censor content. That is why they muddy the public perception of the question, and employ sophists like this to muddy it.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> May layman's understanding of the Section 230 is that it is forcing tech companies to choose whether they want to be a Platform or not. > If they choose to be a Platform i.e. neutral to the content, then they cannot censor, but they are protected from liability of the content. Your understanding is not merely wrong but 180° from what Section 230 rather specifically and explicitly exists to do. Section 230 exists exactly to eliminate that classic, pre-internet, rule distinguishing publishers from mere distributers, and to allow online information services (and individual users) to censor content without incurring the no-notice civil liability for unlawful content that would apply if the pre-Section 230 rule was applied.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jffry 4y ago
Your characterization of Section 230 is the opposite of what it does. From the Wikipedia article [1] on Section 230: > Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the good faith removal or moderation of third-party material they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
- starkd 4y ago
  "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harrassing, or otherwise objectionable" Nonething in that description pertains to someone's opinion. First amendment allows you to hold nazi beliefs in principle, no matter how someone might perceive them as offensive.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 4y ago
    >> "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harrassing, or otherwise objectionable" > Nonething in that description pertains to someone's opinion. Literally all of those items are subjective and a matter of opinion. >First amendment allows you to hold nazi beliefs in principle, no matter how someone might perceive them as offensive. The First Amendment prevents Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech. Social media platforms and private citizens are not Congress, so they are perfectly within their legal rights to tell Nazis to get the hell off their lawn.
    - starkd 4y ago
      Not when they collaborate with the government to censor opinions, which has been happening. Furthermore, there have been several court opinions in the past that have been sympathetic to the "town square" argument of a platform. Restrictions to the first amendment have traditionally been on the basis of a narrow set of immediate threats. They are not thought crimes.
      - sophacles 4y ago
        > collaborate with the government to censor opinions, which has been happening Citation needed.
linkdink 4y ago
The majority shares your layman's understanding, but the dissent does not. Last paragraph of page 111 basically says that the whole point of 230, as confirmed by the person who wrote it, is to avoid the either-or mutually exclusive choice. https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-09-16-Published-Opinion-dckt-.pdf https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-09-1...
- kukkeliskuu 4y ago
  This is a good point, although it refers to what a politician says. It appears that there is no mutually exclusive choice for all the operations for the whole company. The exclusive choice is only regards to a certain piece of content. In practice this means that some parts of Facebook might contain editorial content by Facebook, and others editorial content by users, and Facebook could not censor the latter if they want to get Section 230 protection from liabilities. Unfortunately Section 230 does not stipulate that they need to make it distinct which content is which.
  - linkdink 4y ago
    That ambiguity is where a judge has to use their judgement. So it's interesting that they started with the assumption that they had to make a mutually exclusive choice, but didn't defend that assumption.
sasmithjr 4y ago
Have you read Section 230? If so, which section/paragraph of it do you believe supports your understanding of it?
jcranmer 4y ago
There is no distinction between platform and publisher in §230. Your understanding of what you think it says is in fact closer to the state of affairs before §230, and the state of affairs that §230 was expressly designed to change. Before §230, there were two court cases involving online content which, upon reconciling their rulings, suggest that any online site is liable for content if and only if they perform any moderation whatsoever (including, say, removing child porn). As a result of §230, online sites both have protection from being treated as the speaker of content even if they do moderate (or censor, as you word it) as well as from being sued by the users for the consequences of their moderation.
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...
starkd 4y ago
Thats a concise and correct way of putting it. The techdirt poster ironically wants to claim there's a difference between censorship and editing, but the thrust of his argument indicates an utter disregard for any distinction. They want tech companies the ability to edit, while posing as a platform that is supposedly inclusive. You can't have it both ways.
kukkeliskuu 4y ago
Very interesting comments, thank you all for pointing the contradicting evidence. I was not aware that my understanding was controversial. Apparently the mass of evidence that can be easily found, including Wikipedia and the TechDirt article linked, suggest that I was wrong in my understanding. I do not remember from what source my understanding is from, but I remember it appeared to come from a semi-respectable source at the time. The Tech Dirt article is at least implying that certain politicians are lying about that law. If we look at the article about the 5th Circuit ruling, it appears that implication is that the judges are misunderstanding the law as well. I certainly don't think politicians are above lies. But I think large tech companies have very large vested interest here as well, including Wikipedia and Google. I don't think these companies are above misrepresenting the facts either. It appears that the opinion I presented above is commonplace. It also appears that some of the sponsors(?) of the law and judges that have looked into this issue have opinion of the law that differs from the Tech Dirt article. Also, it appears impossible to find the source where I read it from. These suggests to me that there is some controversy. Perhaps, in an ironic twist, the source is censored from Google results. In any case, my profession has taught me to look more carefully when there is a large disagreement about the facts. Apparently I need to go to the primary sources and read the law next.
- alphabettsy 4y ago
  > If we look at the article about the 5th Circuit ruling, it appears that implication is that the judges are misunderstanding the law as well. Judges are often appointed by politicians. Often judges are appointed specifically for their political beliefs and worldview. This may or may not be the reason why the judges opinion seems more consistent with a political point of view than a well founded legal one.
kukkeliskuu 4y ago
I have now read the Section 230 [1]. I think everybody should really read it themselves, because it is short and clear. Firstly, clearly, IANAL. It do not have background of related law or case law, or legal uses of certain expressions etc. Again, this is a layman's perspective, based on my own reading both Section 230 and the linked commentaries from above. That said, I am trying my best to understand all sides of the issue myself. I may be wrong, but I am trying to be as honest as possible. My opinion above was wrong on some points. There is no reference to term "Platform" in the Section 230. Also, my comment above can be understood (and I think this misunderstanding is common) in a way that companies need explicitly and publicly claim either to be a Platform, or not to be a Platform. The third point is that Section 230, BY ITSELF, does not force companies to do choose or do anything. It actually may protect the companies from liabilities, if they choose to behave in a certain way. However, these points were not central to my argument. Although there is no term "Platform" in the Section 230, we can just use "Platform" as a shorthand for "interactive computer service", as as apparently some commenters of the law have done. Next, obviously companies do not need choose whether they are Platforms or not in the sense that they somehow would need to explicitly and publicly claim what they are. The issue is more subtle. I think some of the commenters above are not aware of how policies are formed within corporations. I work in the field (finance) where this is done all the time. There always needs to be an interpretation of laws, regulations and guidance from regulatory bodies within the corporation. This interpretation is at least implicitly and sometimes explicitly encoded in the internal policies. The corporate lawyers are central people who participate in creating these policies. The companies do not need explicitly and publicly claim to be a Platform or not. At the same time, it is 100% certain that their corporate lawyers are (and must be) familiar with the intricacies of the laws and regulations, and in a way they need to be very explicit in their thinking when forming these internal policies whether they think their company is a Platform or not, regardless of whether they document this thinking in the internal policies or nor. While the "choosing" happens privately within the company, it is in a way clear from the actions based on those policies, whether they have chosen to be a Platform or not. And this choosing becomes explicit if the said company needs to defend their actions in court. However, the commenters have a good point that the Section 230 BY ITSELF does not force companies to choose whether they are Platform or not. They need to choose only if they want protection by using the Section 230. What the commentaries above miss, however, is both implicit in the title "Good Samaritan" and explicit in the content, with the term "in good faith". If you think I am wrong, please read up or remind yourself what that story in the Bible is about. From my reading of Section 230, I fail to see that this would protect companies that censor opposing political views, for example. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

dragonwriter 4y ago

> May layman's understanding of the Section 230 is that it is forcing tech companies to choose whether they want to be a Platform or not. > If they choose to be a Platform i.e. neutral to the content, then they cannot censor, but they are protected from liability of the content. Your understanding is not merely wrong but 180° from what Section 230 rather specifically and explicitly exists to do. Section 230 exists exactly to eliminate that classic, pre-internet, rule distinguishing publishers from mere distributers, and to allow online information services (and individual users) to censor content without incurring the no-notice civil liability for unlawful content that would apply if the pre-Section 230 rule was applied.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jffry 4y ago

Your characterization of Section 230 is the opposite of what it does. From the Wikipedia article [1] on Section 230: > Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the good faith removal or moderation of third-party material they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

starkd 4y ago
"obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harrassing, or otherwise objectionable" Nonething in that description pertains to someone's opinion. First amendment allows you to hold nazi beliefs in principle, no matter how someone might perceive them as offensive.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 4y ago
  >> "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harrassing, or otherwise objectionable" > Nonething in that description pertains to someone's opinion. Literally all of those items are subjective and a matter of opinion. >First amendment allows you to hold nazi beliefs in principle, no matter how someone might perceive them as offensive. The First Amendment prevents Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech. Social media platforms and private citizens are not Congress, so they are perfectly within their legal rights to tell Nazis to get the hell off their lawn.
  - starkd 4y ago
    Not when they collaborate with the government to censor opinions, which has been happening. Furthermore, there have been several court opinions in the past that have been sympathetic to the "town square" argument of a platform. Restrictions to the first amendment have traditionally been on the basis of a narrow set of immediate threats. They are not thought crimes.
    - sophacles 4y ago
      > collaborate with the government to censor opinions, which has been happening Citation needed.

linkdink 4y ago

The majority shares your layman's understanding, but the dissent does not. Last paragraph of page 111 basically says that the whole point of 230, as confirmed by the person who wrote it, is to avoid the either-or mutually exclusive choice. https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-09-16-Published-Opinion-dckt-.pdf https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-09-1...

kukkeliskuu 4y ago
This is a good point, although it refers to what a politician says. It appears that there is no mutually exclusive choice for all the operations for the whole company. The exclusive choice is only regards to a certain piece of content. In practice this means that some parts of Facebook might contain editorial content by Facebook, and others editorial content by users, and Facebook could not censor the latter if they want to get Section 230 protection from liabilities. Unfortunately Section 230 does not stipulate that they need to make it distinct which content is which.
- linkdink 4y ago
  That ambiguity is where a judge has to use their judgement. So it's interesting that they started with the assumption that they had to make a mutually exclusive choice, but didn't defend that assumption.

sasmithjr 4y ago

Have you read Section 230? If so, which section/paragraph of it do you believe supports your understanding of it?

jcranmer 4y ago

There is no distinction between platform and publisher in §230. Your understanding of what you think it says is in fact closer to the state of affairs before §230, and the state of affairs that §230 was expressly designed to change. Before §230, there were two court cases involving online content which, upon reconciling their rulings, suggest that any online site is liable for content if and only if they perform any moderation whatsoever (including, say, removing child porn). As a result of §230, online sites both have protection from being treated as the speaker of content even if they do moderate (or censor, as you word it) as well as from being sued by the users for the consequences of their moderation.

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...

starkd 4y ago

Thats a concise and correct way of putting it. The techdirt poster ironically wants to claim there's a difference between censorship and editing, but the thrust of his argument indicates an utter disregard for any distinction. They want tech companies the ability to edit, while posing as a platform that is supposedly inclusive. You can't have it both ways.

kukkeliskuu 4y ago

Very interesting comments, thank you all for pointing the contradicting evidence. I was not aware that my understanding was controversial. Apparently the mass of evidence that can be easily found, including Wikipedia and the TechDirt article linked, suggest that I was wrong in my understanding. I do not remember from what source my understanding is from, but I remember it appeared to come from a semi-respectable source at the time. The Tech Dirt article is at least implying that certain politicians are lying about that law. If we look at the article about the 5th Circuit ruling, it appears that implication is that the judges are misunderstanding the law as well. I certainly don't think politicians are above lies. But I think large tech companies have very large vested interest here as well, including Wikipedia and Google. I don't think these companies are above misrepresenting the facts either. It appears that the opinion I presented above is commonplace. It also appears that some of the sponsors(?) of the law and judges that have looked into this issue have opinion of the law that differs from the Tech Dirt article. Also, it appears impossible to find the source where I read it from. These suggests to me that there is some controversy. Perhaps, in an ironic twist, the source is censored from Google results. In any case, my profession has taught me to look more carefully when there is a large disagreement about the facts. Apparently I need to go to the primary sources and read the law next.

alphabettsy 4y ago
> If we look at the article about the 5th Circuit ruling, it appears that implication is that the judges are misunderstanding the law as well. Judges are often appointed by politicians. Often judges are appointed specifically for their political beliefs and worldview. This may or may not be the reason why the judges opinion seems more consistent with a political point of view than a well founded legal one.

kukkeliskuu 4y ago

I have now read the Section 230 [1]. I think everybody should really read it themselves, because it is short and clear. Firstly, clearly, IANAL. It do not have background of related law or case law, or legal uses of certain expressions etc. Again, this is a layman's perspective, based on my own reading both Section 230 and the linked commentaries from above. That said, I am trying my best to understand all sides of the issue myself. I may be wrong, but I am trying to be as honest as possible. My opinion above was wrong on some points. There is no reference to term "Platform" in the Section 230. Also, my comment above can be understood (and I think this misunderstanding is common) in a way that companies need explicitly and publicly claim either to be a Platform, or not to be a Platform. The third point is that Section 230, BY ITSELF, does not force companies to do choose or do anything. It actually may protect the companies from liabilities, if they choose to behave in a certain way. However, these points were not central to my argument. Although there is no term "Platform" in the Section 230, we can just use "Platform" as a shorthand for "interactive computer service", as as apparently some commenters of the law have done. Next, obviously companies do not need choose whether they are Platforms or not in the sense that they somehow would need to explicitly and publicly claim what they are. The issue is more subtle. I think some of the commenters above are not aware of how policies are formed within corporations. I work in the field (finance) where this is done all the time. There always needs to be an interpretation of laws, regulations and guidance from regulatory bodies within the corporation. This interpretation is at least implicitly and sometimes explicitly encoded in the internal policies. The corporate lawyers are central people who participate in creating these policies. The companies do not need explicitly and publicly claim to be a Platform or not. At the same time, it is 100% certain that their corporate lawyers are (and must be) familiar with the intricacies of the laws and regulations, and in a way they need to be very explicit in their thinking when forming these internal policies whether they think their company is a Platform or not, regardless of whether they document this thinking in the internal policies or nor. While the "choosing" happens privately within the company, it is in a way clear from the actions based on those policies, whether they have chosen to be a Platform or not. And this choosing becomes explicit if the said company needs to defend their actions in court. However, the commenters have a good point that the Section 230 BY ITSELF does not force companies to choose whether they are Platform or not. They need to choose only if they want protection by using the Section 230. What the commentaries above miss, however, is both implicit in the title "Good Samaritan" and explicit in the content, with the term "in good faith". If you think I am wrong, please read up or remind yourself what that story in the Bible is about. From my reading of Section 230, I fail to see that this would protect companies that censor opposing political views, for example. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230