3 ms·

Section 230 protects every moderated forum. Maybe it should distinguish between forums, where everyone sees the same content, and social networks, where people

Section 230 protects every moderated forum. Maybe it should distinguish between forums, where everyone sees the same content, and social networks, where people choose who to follow and who to block. Maybe social networks should be regulated as common carriers[1]. But simply removing the second paragraph of Section 230, making moderated forums liable for every post, would make them legally unviable. [1]: https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/carrier.pdf https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/carrier.pdf

stevewatson301 4y ago
Forums are too small of an audience to be even considered by most people, including political leaders considering such regulation, who consider Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit to be the only websites with UGC, and it's difficult to explain that distinction to folks, in my personal experience.
- amadeuspagel 4y ago
  Well, it's not just HN and a bunch of vbulletin boards. Every subreddit, every facebook group, every discord server is the kind of forum that section 230 protects. In fact, even if you block people on twitter you are arguably turning the replies to your tweets into a moderated forum. Should that make you liable for them?
- bombcar 4y ago
  As mentioned, "forum" here doesn't mean 'software website running on vbulletin' as we normally refer to a web forum, it's more like the "open forum of ideas" concept. dang can ban me, remove this comment, hide it, etc, but in no way will he or hackernews be legally liable if someone sees it; I am. If 230 were not there, then there could be legal liability and the protection against it would be positive moderation or none at all perhaps. Positive moderation meaning dang would have to read and approve each post because HN would be taking on the liability of said post. Simply not scalable.
parkingrift 4y ago
>and social networks, where people choose who to follow and who to block. This is mostly dead. You are not in control of the content you see. The algorithm decides what to show you. If your platform a) decides what content I see, or b) editorializes that content, then you are a publisher. Publishers do not deserve 230 protections. I think this is where the line should be drawn.

stevewatson301 4y ago

Forums are too small of an audience to be even considered by most people, including political leaders considering such regulation, who consider Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit to be the only websites with UGC, and it's difficult to explain that distinction to folks, in my personal experience.

amadeuspagel 4y ago
Well, it's not just HN and a bunch of vbulletin boards. Every subreddit, every facebook group, every discord server is the kind of forum that section 230 protects. In fact, even if you block people on twitter you are arguably turning the replies to your tweets into a moderated forum. Should that make you liable for them?
bombcar 4y ago
As mentioned, "forum" here doesn't mean 'software website running on vbulletin' as we normally refer to a web forum, it's more like the "open forum of ideas" concept. dang can ban me, remove this comment, hide it, etc, but in no way will he or hackernews be legally liable if someone sees it; I am. If 230 were not there, then there could be legal liability and the protection against it would be positive moderation or none at all perhaps. Positive moderation meaning dang would have to read and approve each post because HN would be taking on the liability of said post. Simply not scalable.

parkingrift 4y ago

>and social networks, where people choose who to follow and who to block. This is mostly dead. You are not in control of the content you see. The algorithm decides what to show you. If your platform a) decides what content I see, or b) editorializes that content, then you are a publisher. Publishers do not deserve 230 protections. I think this is where the line should be drawn.