4 ms·
It will result in way higher moderation, instead of less. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/section-230-good-actually https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12
by belltaco 4y ago
It will result in way higher moderation, instead of less.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/section-230-good-actually https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/section-230-good-actua...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoI want smaller, tighter knit, and moderated communites. Why do we care about outcome anyway? The outcome of section 230 was arbitrary moderation, consolidation, and surveillance capitalism. It is unnatural for an entity to not be liable for what they publish.
- ThrowawayTestr 4y agoDo you want the owners of those small communities to get sued if someone posts copywrited material?
- zionic 4y agoIf they don’t censor, they’re not liable. If they censor, they are liable.
- 8note 4y agoSounds like a weird requirement. If they host the content, they should be sued, minus 230 protections
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoI've read that if you moderate you are acting as an editor even if the content is user generated and that means you are a publisher. Publishers are liable for what they publish. Section 230 basically erased the distinction between publisher and distributor.
- belltaco 4y agoNo, repealing Section 230 means every site with user generated content is publishing the information, just like a newspaper or TV channel, which get successfully sued all the time. In fact, Section 230 was passed explicitly because of successful lawsuits against forums and websites hosting user generated content. https://itif.org/publications/2021/02/22/overview-section-230-what-it-why-it-was-created-and-what-it-has-achieved/ https://itif.org/publications/2021/02/22/overview-section-23...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc. > The court held that although CompuServe did host defamatory content on its forums, CompuServe was merely a distributor, rather than a publisher, of the content. As a distributor, CompuServe could only be held liable for defamation if it knew, or had reason to know, of the defamatory nature of the content.[2] As CompuServe had made no effort to review the large volume of content on its forums, it could not be held liable for the defamatory content.
- fzeroracer 4y agoWhen Section 230 goes every forum and smaller community becomes the legal wild west, open to being sued by any jackass claiming libel and to drag site owners into a years long legal battle.
- disgruntledphd2 4y agoNo Section 230 means more centralization of discourse, not less.
- belltaco 4y ago>It is unnatural for an entity to not be liable for what they publish Since when have paper boys been held liable for what's in the newspapers? Social media is distributing someone else's opinions. The very forum you're posting in will cease to exist.
- sbaiddn 4y agoThe paper boy isnt knowingly distributing, say, child porn magazine. If he were, the. he'd be an accessory. Big Tech does knowingly transport illegal things. If the paper that the paper boy distributing has the occasional libel, then the paper boy is not liable because he cannot have a criminal state of mind for something he doesn't know is in contained within his cargo. Finally, the paper boy is a boy, that is a child. Depending on the age he is not criminally liable no matter what he's carrying. Big Tech are not "niños de pecho", suckling bebes. They are large corporate monopolies with immense power, money, political influence and top lawyers Finally, my solution is to de-centralize everything.
- wvenable 4y agoYour analogy doesn't work because social media companies are liable for hosting illegal things just like your paper boy.
- sbaiddn 4y agoTell that to MindGeek. Child porn was an example of something that obviously would get even a paper boy in trouble (as long as he's old enough). There are a lot of things that are illegal, including libel. Section 230 just picked and choose which crimes to shield Big Tech from.