6 ms·

Congress passed a law to specifically ensure they are websites are not responsible for the speech they reproduce. This law is good because it encourages content

Congress passed a law to specifically ensure they are websites are not responsible for the speech they reproduce. This law is good because it encourages content moderation because there are never consequences for the moderation decisions.

pessimizer 4y ago
> This law is good because it encourages content moderation This is too direct for me to be putting words in your mouth: do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good?
- aNoob7000 4y ago
  Content moderation is a balancing act. Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take corrective action. Do you believe that zero content moderation is good?
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    I take content moderation on a case by case basis. That's like asking me to decide between whether all movies are good or all movies should be banned. > Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take corrective action. We should help them by giving them far less latitude.
    - jcranmer 4y ago
      Note that the First Amendment prohibits the government from being able to mandate any moderation guidelines whatsoever, as moderation is inherently a content-based restriction on speech.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        My problem is that the government has found a sweet spot where it can regulate speech and surveil without limits through dependent proxies. It has no need to mandate moderation guidelines.
        jcranmer 4y ago
        If the government is regulating speech via dependent proxies, that is in violation of the First Amendment. There is actually developed case law as to what constitutes sufficient government coercion that turns a third party into a state actor, and some of things that have been done actually cut close enough to that threshold to be viably argued at trial. The problem is that no one filing these various cases against social media is properly alleging sufficient facts to suggest government coercion: it's that Twitter (et al.) are state actors because §230, or yappy politician said they should do this [1], or even merely arguing that First Amendment applies to social media absent showing of state actor just because. All of which are stupid arguments so facially wrong that they're not going to survive a motion to dismiss. [1] While threatening legislation is in fact illegal government coercion, this needs to be understood on the same grounds as true threats: namely, it has to be reasonably believed and understood to be a specific threat, and not hyperbole or puffery or the like. Also, and there are some people who fail to recognize the basic linearity of time, a supposed threat made after the action in question was taken cannot have been a cause of that action.
        0x445442 4y ago
        > The problem is that no one filing these various cases against social media is properly alleging sufficient facts to suggest government coercion… Alex Berenson did.
        aw1621107 4y ago
        Hardly. The judge tossed all of Berenson's claims that relate to government coercion [0]. The only claims that survived are those for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, which didn't have to do with alleged government coercion. > In sum, plaintiff’s breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims survive for now. Plaintiff’s other claims are futile and are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. [0]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.38...
        4y ago
- triceratops 4y ago
  > do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good? Yes. Because it's a natural extension of property rights. Do you not believe in property rights?
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    I don't believe in natural property rights, because I don't know how to find them in nature. Property rights as assigned by law don't have to be believed in, just observed, because they are enforced. "Natural extensions" of property rights are religious beliefs. I believe they should be protected, but not indulged.
    - triceratops 4y ago
      I didn't say anything about "natural" property rights. Property rights as assigned by law let you decide who to allow or disallow access to your property. If the property is open to the general public, there are some additional rules you have to follow. But you're free to ban activities from your property.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        If we aren't discussing natural property rights, we aren't discussing anything. Of course there are property laws. They can be whatever we decide they are.
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      All rights are legal rights. No one has any rights without a legal system.
  - rufus_foreman 4y ago
    Do you believe the electric company should be able to choose not to provide you with electricity if you express an opinion with which the owners of that company disagree? That would be an example of the owners of the electric company asserting their property rights. Might there be situations where property rights need to be weighed against other considerations?
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  Content moderation is legal, and companies will do as much or little of it, using whatever parameters necessary, to attract people to their platforms and compete with other platforms. Very few things are unambiguously good; particularly without specifying a moral or ethical context.
- cjensen 4y ago
  Unambiguous good? No, it will depend on the quality of the moderation. But I think it is more important to encourage good moderators to moderate more than it is to punish poor moderation.
- 8note 4y ago
  Yes. Even if you don't like the results, you can cheaply use another medium, like talking to people in person. The freedom of association is a valuable one, and people should be allowed to decide who they associate with to talk to

pessimizer 4y ago

> This law is good because it encourages content moderation This is too direct for me to be putting words in your mouth: do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good?

aNoob7000 4y ago
Content moderation is a balancing act. Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take corrective action. Do you believe that zero content moderation is good?
- pessimizer 4y ago
  I take content moderation on a case by case basis. That's like asking me to decide between whether all movies are good or all movies should be banned. > Companies are going to make mistakes and have to take corrective action. We should help them by giving them far less latitude.
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    Note that the First Amendment prohibits the government from being able to mandate any moderation guidelines whatsoever, as moderation is inherently a content-based restriction on speech.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      My problem is that the government has found a sweet spot where it can regulate speech and surveil without limits through dependent proxies. It has no need to mandate moderation guidelines.
      - jcranmer 4y ago
        If the government is regulating speech via dependent proxies, that is in violation of the First Amendment. There is actually developed case law as to what constitutes sufficient government coercion that turns a third party into a state actor, and some of things that have been done actually cut close enough to that threshold to be viably argued at trial. The problem is that no one filing these various cases against social media is properly alleging sufficient facts to suggest government coercion: it's that Twitter (et al.) are state actors because §230, or yappy politician said they should do this [1], or even merely arguing that First Amendment applies to social media absent showing of state actor just because. All of which are stupid arguments so facially wrong that they're not going to survive a motion to dismiss. [1] While threatening legislation is in fact illegal government coercion, this needs to be understood on the same grounds as true threats: namely, it has to be reasonably believed and understood to be a specific threat, and not hyperbole or puffery or the like. Also, and there are some people who fail to recognize the basic linearity of time, a supposed threat made after the action in question was taken cannot have been a cause of that action.
        0x445442 4y ago
        > The problem is that no one filing these various cases against social media is properly alleging sufficient facts to suggest government coercion… Alex Berenson did.
        aw1621107 4y ago
        Hardly. The judge tossed all of Berenson's claims that relate to government coercion [0]. The only claims that survived are those for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, which didn't have to do with alleged government coercion. > In sum, plaintiff’s breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims survive for now. Plaintiff’s other claims are futile and are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. [0]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.389677/gov.uscourts.cand.389677.39.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.38...
        4y ago
triceratops 4y ago
> do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good? Yes. Because it's a natural extension of property rights. Do you not believe in property rights?
- pessimizer 4y ago
  I don't believe in natural property rights, because I don't know how to find them in nature. Property rights as assigned by law don't have to be believed in, just observed, because they are enforced. "Natural extensions" of property rights are religious beliefs. I believe they should be protected, but not indulged.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    I didn't say anything about "natural" property rights. Property rights as assigned by law let you decide who to allow or disallow access to your property. If the property is open to the general public, there are some additional rules you have to follow. But you're free to ban activities from your property.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      If we aren't discussing natural property rights, we aren't discussing anything. Of course there are property laws. They can be whatever we decide they are.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    All rights are legal rights. No one has any rights without a legal system.
- rufus_foreman 4y ago
  Do you believe the electric company should be able to choose not to provide you with electricity if you express an opinion with which the owners of that company disagree? That would be an example of the owners of the electric company asserting their property rights. Might there be situations where property rights need to be weighed against other considerations?
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
Content moderation is legal, and companies will do as much or little of it, using whatever parameters necessary, to attract people to their platforms and compete with other platforms. Very few things are unambiguously good; particularly without specifying a moral or ethical context.
cjensen 4y ago
Unambiguous good? No, it will depend on the quality of the moderation. But I think it is more important to encourage good moderators to moderate more than it is to punish poor moderation.
8note 4y ago
Yes. Even if you don't like the results, you can cheaply use another medium, like talking to people in person. The freedom of association is a valuable one, and people should be allowed to decide who they associate with to talk to