4 ms·

> That's not what a common carrier is. Section 230 doesn't define common carriers or hold common carriers not liable for their users' posts. It has nothing to d

> That's not what a common carrier is. Section 230 doesn't define common carriers or hold common carriers not liable for their users' posts. It has nothing to do with common carriers. sigh That is literally what they are. Section 230 was enacted specifically to allow internet-adjacent services to avoid being treated as publishers for purposes of user-contributed content despite also engaging in some manner of curation (particularly with respect to removing obscene materials pursuant to the Communications Decency Act). You don't get to pretend they're not operating as a common carrier just because you grepped 47 U.S.C. § 230 and didn't find the words "Common Carrier" in it. > Please educate yourself. This is unnecessarily rude. HN is not Reddit. Please don't condescend like that. > The law actually recognizes that internet platforms aren't like old media and accommodates their unique constraints. Except, of course, that they are. You're either some specie of Common Carrier (in which case you aren't liable for what flows through your service), or you're a Publisher. If you want some manner of media via between the two then there needs to be some qualification of what you need to do in order to get the best of both worlds, and right now Section 230 simply doesn't provide that. It allows them to pretend to be a Common Carrier when someone says something outrageous and they want to escape liability for it, and pretend to be a Publisher when someone says something they don't like. > So do you wanna give Zuck a copy of your passport? Or wait 20 hours until your food pictures are posted? If neither of those sound appealing to you, Section 230 is a good thing. ...or we could just write a new law that allows you to be treated as a Common Carrier but only subject to certain express conditions... which oddly enough is exactly what everyone and their brother has been saying for years now. I for one would be perfectly happy attaching a simple requirement that they not engage in viewpoint discrimination ('editorializing'), but merely remove posts that are off-topic, uncivil, or otherwise of low-quality according to clear, specific, and objectively verifiable standards. Is there some reason we shouldn't want that?

triceratops 4y ago
> You're either some specie of Common Carrier...or you're a Publisher Section 230 calls them "information service providers", which makes them neither. You're saying stuff that you wish was in the law. Information service providers are not held liable for their users' content because it would be infeasible to police it properly in real-time. This is common sense. It's emphatically not because they're "claiming common carrier status to avoid liability". By allowing them to moderate and curate content on the platform the law outright says they aren't common carriers, because common carriers have to..."carry". Your phone company can't randomly bleep out your swear words in your conversations. Internet Service Providers aren't even treated as common carriers. Why the heck should apps that work on top of them be treated as such? Is every 1-800 number a common carrier? > according to clear, specific, and objectively verifiable standards Every social platform has a terms of service and usually, community guidelines. Beyond that who defines and decides this? You want the government getting involved in this? How is that better for "free speech"? I'd prefer to let the free market decide, personally. It's weird to see conservatives argue against that.
- EarlKing 4y ago
  > You're saying stuff that you wish was in the law. I'm telling you what the law was before Section 230 was written and why it was written. I'm telling you moreover that Section 230 is a bad law as it carves out a media via between being a common carrier and a publisher but does not lay out any substantive requirements for obtaining this, resulting in providers censoring people arbitrarily. > Every social platform has a terms of service and usually, community guidelines. Beyond that who defines and decides this? Social platforms routinely have terms of service that are vague, ambiguous, and which are routinely misinterpreted to flag communications that are otherwise lawful as being "hate speech" or some other such violation so they may be removed, with absolutely no penalty to the service provider for falsely flagging such speech. > You want the government getting involved in this? How is that better for "free speech"? Do I want the government getting involved in compelling service providers to honor their terms of service, not fraudulently claim communications violate the same, and avoid editorializing? Yeah, I do. > I'd prefer to let the free market decide, personally. The free market does not allow you to break the law with impunity. > It's weird to see conservatives argue against that. Good thing I'm not a conservative... but if I were, would that really change anything? It's amazing that arguing in favor of the freedom of speech is suddenly a conservative position these days.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    > arguing in favor of the freedom of speech There's plenty of free speech online. You aren't entitled to free speech on others' property. Fix net neutrality first if you want true free speech. And I definitely don't want the government to decide if something is "hate speech" or not. That's a slippery slope to actually losing freedom of speech.
    - EarlKing 4y ago
      > There's plenty of free speech online. You aren't entitled to free speech on others' property. ...neither are others allowed to fraudulently claim speech acts violate their terms of service. > Fix net neutrality first if you want true free speech. Por que no los dos?

triceratops 4y ago

> You're either some specie of Common Carrier...or you're a Publisher Section 230 calls them "information service providers", which makes them neither. You're saying stuff that you wish was in the law. Information service providers are not held liable for their users' content because it would be infeasible to police it properly in real-time. This is common sense. It's emphatically not because they're "claiming common carrier status to avoid liability". By allowing them to moderate and curate content on the platform the law outright says they aren't common carriers, because common carriers have to..."carry". Your phone company can't randomly bleep out your swear words in your conversations. Internet Service Providers aren't even treated as common carriers. Why the heck should apps that work on top of them be treated as such? Is every 1-800 number a common carrier? > according to clear, specific, and objectively verifiable standards Every social platform has a terms of service and usually, community guidelines. Beyond that who defines and decides this? You want the government getting involved in this? How is that better for "free speech"? I'd prefer to let the free market decide, personally. It's weird to see conservatives argue against that.

EarlKing 4y ago
> You're saying stuff that you wish was in the law. I'm telling you what the law was before Section 230 was written and why it was written. I'm telling you moreover that Section 230 is a bad law as it carves out a media via between being a common carrier and a publisher but does not lay out any substantive requirements for obtaining this, resulting in providers censoring people arbitrarily. > Every social platform has a terms of service and usually, community guidelines. Beyond that who defines and decides this? Social platforms routinely have terms of service that are vague, ambiguous, and which are routinely misinterpreted to flag communications that are otherwise lawful as being "hate speech" or some other such violation so they may be removed, with absolutely no penalty to the service provider for falsely flagging such speech. > You want the government getting involved in this? How is that better for "free speech"? Do I want the government getting involved in compelling service providers to honor their terms of service, not fraudulently claim communications violate the same, and avoid editorializing? Yeah, I do. > I'd prefer to let the free market decide, personally. The free market does not allow you to break the law with impunity. > It's weird to see conservatives argue against that. Good thing I'm not a conservative... but if I were, would that really change anything? It's amazing that arguing in favor of the freedom of speech is suddenly a conservative position these days.
- triceratops 4y ago
  > arguing in favor of the freedom of speech There's plenty of free speech online. You aren't entitled to free speech on others' property. Fix net neutrality first if you want true free speech. And I definitely don't want the government to decide if something is "hate speech" or not. That's a slippery slope to actually losing freedom of speech.
  - EarlKing 4y ago
    > There's plenty of free speech online. You aren't entitled to free speech on others' property. ...neither are others allowed to fraudulently claim speech acts violate their terms of service. > Fix net neutrality first if you want true free speech. Por que no los dos?