4 ms·

Dang publishing a moderation list is clearly freedom of speech, dang moderating is clearly censorship (even if legal and you like the result). The speech/censo

Dang publishing a moderation list is clearly freedom of speech, dang moderating is clearly censorship (even if legal and you like the result). The speech/censorship dichotomy could be solved by users choosing what moderation they want. Just like with adblockers you can add custom rules and choose between UBlock list, EasyList, and so on, but most people just go with the default. It's the same idea as showdead, with users choosing for themselves what speech to hear or ignore. Pretty much everybody will use "dang's list" and get the same HN as they have today - unless the valuable conversations start being visible on another, more competitive moderation list. If somebody is unhappy with the result they can make their own moderation list, and choose to publish it or not.

Volundr 4y ago
The content I choose to allow on my platform is an inherent part of my free speech. The government forcing me to carry content I don't want to on my platform is a violation of my free speech. There is no getting around that.
- bsdetector 4y ago
  The government is not forcing you to carry or not carry content, they're forcing you to take responsibility for what you selectively publish ("allow" as you put it) and not for content you simply repeat without looking at. It's the same principle as in other areas like when you know or should have known about a hazard on your property you become liable for it. In the case of a forum, moderation implies that you should have known what the content was and so are liable for it. If I was running a forum I'd certainly want a Chinese wall between hosting and moderation, and a record of all comments moderators actually viewed (from reports and through normal use) to use as an affirmative defense should 230 be interpreted as in this ruling.
kevinmchugh 4y ago
It's certainly technically possible to build a site with moderation like that. It might be preferable for many consumers. There's no obligation that all forums must work that way.
- bsdetector 4y ago
  Well according to this ruling there's a section 230 obligation to either structure your forum in a way like this or moderate and be responsible for all the content.
  - kevinmchugh 4y ago
    The implementation of such a system would be an unfortunately high barrier to entry, certainly causing greater concentration in online fora, and as writers and readers I think we'd be worse for it. Interpretation of 230 is controversial so I'm sure this will end up at SCOTUS sooner or later.
    - bsdetector 4y ago
      I don't see anything particularly technically difficult in separating hosting from moderation or having users able to moderate for themselves. Most forums already do this in some capacity with showdead or personalized block lists per user.

Volundr 4y ago

The content I choose to allow on my platform is an inherent part of my free speech. The government forcing me to carry content I don't want to on my platform is a violation of my free speech. There is no getting around that.

bsdetector 4y ago
The government is not forcing you to carry or not carry content, they're forcing you to take responsibility for what you selectively publish ("allow" as you put it) and not for content you simply repeat without looking at. It's the same principle as in other areas like when you know or should have known about a hazard on your property you become liable for it. In the case of a forum, moderation implies that you should have known what the content was and so are liable for it. If I was running a forum I'd certainly want a Chinese wall between hosting and moderation, and a record of all comments moderators actually viewed (from reports and through normal use) to use as an affirmative defense should 230 be interpreted as in this ruling.

kevinmchugh 4y ago

It's certainly technically possible to build a site with moderation like that. It might be preferable for many consumers. There's no obligation that all forums must work that way.

bsdetector 4y ago
Well according to this ruling there's a section 230 obligation to either structure your forum in a way like this or moderate and be responsible for all the content.
- kevinmchugh 4y ago
  The implementation of such a system would be an unfortunately high barrier to entry, certainly causing greater concentration in online fora, and as writers and readers I think we'd be worse for it. Interpretation of 230 is controversial so I'm sure this will end up at SCOTUS sooner or later.
  - bsdetector 4y ago
    I don't see anything particularly technically difficult in separating hosting from moderation or having users able to moderate for themselves. Most forums already do this in some capacity with showdead or personalized block lists per user.