6 ms·

Google and Section 230: US court ruling could “turn the internet upside down”

hirundo 4y ago
> In accepting the case, the Supreme Court has agreed to answer the question: Does Section 23 exempt interactive computer services from liability “if they specifically draw attention to information made available by another information content provider”? On the one hand, yes you should be responsible your own editorial choices in the content you publish. On the other, legislative power to impose that responsibility should be leashed to the existing narrow categories of unprotected speech, under strict scrutiny.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  What narrow categories are you talking about?
  - hirundo 4y ago
    https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11072.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11072.pdf obscenity incitement defamation fraud fighting words true threats speech integral to criminal conduct child pornography I don't agree with all of these, but it's a significant limitation to a legislature to disallow legislation on other speech, and to judge restrictions on these strictly.
jeffbee 4y ago
Most of the articles on this site are unintelligible. Is it just posting LLM outputs?
- dang 4y ago
  (We've since changed the URL)
kyrra 4y ago
Blogspam? The WSJ article is the source here https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-says-supreme-court-ruling-could-potentially-upend-the-internet-11673553968 https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-says-supreme-court-rulin... https://archive.ph/LZfa8 https://archive.ph/LZfa8
- dang 4y ago
  Ok, we changed to that from https://techaint.com/2023/01/15/google-and-section-230-us-court-ruling-could-turn-the-internet-upside-down/ https://techaint.com/2023/01/15/google-and-section-230-us-co.... Thanks!
kube-system 4y ago
I sometimes wonder, if we never had 230 to begin with, if the internet would still be a decentralized collection of blogs and websites.
- torstenvl 4y ago
  No. 230 is why sites like geocities and tripod and blogger and livejournal and so on could exist in the first place.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    Those sites are the beginnings of the centralization I’m talking about.
    - nostrademons 4y ago
      Previously the liability was held by the ISP that hosted the individual website with objectionable content. Section 230 was written in response to a pair of lawsuits against ISPs, not against bigger webhosting firms like Geocities or Tripod. Without it there would be a strong incentive not to host anything by arbitrary unvetted customers.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        The incentive would be to act as a dumb pipe, which absolved telecom providers from liability pre-230. (And still does today for unmoderated communications services)
        torstenvl 4y ago
        There is no "dumb pipe" liability shield. There was no absolving of liability pre-230. And 230 — not some fairly tale alternative statute that mysteriously doesn't appear anywhere in the U.S. Code — is what provides that liability shield today, for moderated and unmoderated hosts and sites alike.
lumb63 4y ago
I’m a fan of a proposal by Vivek Ramaswamy, from his book Woke, Inc. Companies that want protection from liability for user content should not be able to censor any content not required by law. Companies that want to moderate content should not be afforded any liability protection.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  This would destroy Hacker News, which employs heavy moderation.
  - christkv 4y ago
    It would be interesting to know what would happen to sites like Reddit where there is community moderation. Might be still possible as it’s not the company doing it.
    - 0x_rs 4y ago
      I don't know how it would be possible to distinguish between an unaffiliated volunteer and a company. They'd have to sign a statement, I don't see it being feasible. What I think would be a great step forward is moderation transparency, of which there is none on sites like reddit (and it's much needed, their moderation in large communities is embarrassing, see the /r/art thing recently), but I guess that is also without issues due to privacy regulations. What it is not possible to get away with is no user-generated content moderation, it's only going to become more strict with less leniency for platforms, not the opposite, see: EU proposals on the matter pending.
  - lumb63 4y ago
    If they deem themselves fit to censor their users, why shouldn’t they be liable for the content their users produce?
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Because the outcome informs the choice. Regardless of the pithiness of the aphorism, if the result of its application is the destruction of a site like HN then it doesn't matter what the aphorism says - it's functionally a HN-destroying bomb. It's a deontological reversal. When someone points out the consequences of the action, the intentions necessarily become the realization of those consequences. So why shouldn't they be liable? Because that liability is yoked directly to its destruction. They are inseparable.
Kon-Peki 4y ago
If anyone is interested in the plaintiff's argument, it is here [1] Argument #1: > The lower courts have mistakenly interpreted “publisher” to have its everyday meaning, referring to an entity or person in the business of publishing, and have at times compounded that error by insisting that section 230(c)(1) applies to virtually any activity in which such a publisher might engage, including making recommendations. But “publisher” in section 230(c)(1) is used in the narrow sense drawn from defamation law. If section 230(c)(1) is properly so understood, the imposition of liability based on a recommendation would not in every instance treat the defendant as a publisher within the meaning of that provision. Argument #2 > the content at issue must have been provided by “another information content provider,” not by the defendant itself. Recommendations may contain information from the defendant, such as a hyperlink with the URL of material the defendant hopes the user will download, or notifications of new postings the defendant hopes the user will find interesting. The Ninth Circuit erred in holding that URLs and notifications are not information within the meaning of section 230(c)(1). Argument #3 > the Ninth and Second Circuits erred in holding that section 230(c)(1) protects a defendant if it sends to a user content which the user did not actually request. A defendant is acting as the provider of an “interactive computer service,” and thus within the scope of section 230(c)(1), when it is providing “access...to a computer server.” A computer functions as a “server,” as that term is used in section 230, only when it is providing to a user a file (such as text, or a video), which the user has actually requested, or is performing other tasks (such as a search) at the request of the user. Hey, Google may win this (I am pretty sure they will). But this claim that a loss would turn the internet upside down is histrionics. No, if Google loses, the internet will still be just fine: > Thus, although some practices that might be characterized as recommendations could satisfy all three elements of the section 230(c)(1) defense, others would not. > Search engines are in two important respects different from social media sites. First, search engines only provide users with materials in response to requests from the users themselves, and thus necessarily function as providers of interactive computer services. Second, although search engines provide users with hyperlinks embedded with URLs, those URLs are created by the website where the material at issue is located, not by the search engine itself. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/20221130182721608_GonzalezPetMerits.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/202...
mikem170 4y ago
I would like to see recommendation algorithms brought into this discussion. On the one hand there's moderation to censor, or remove, offensive, dangerous, or disruptive content. I feel that section 230 does a fair job addressing this. On the other hand there's recommendation engines often promoting outrageous content, putting things in front of everyone, in order to optimize for engagement and profit. Isn't this acting as a publisher, choosing what to promote, instead of showing people chronological, friend, or user selected feeds? These companies are in control over much of what is being presented to people. There's been massacres committed in various countries because big tech companies promoted certain messages, based on their secret algorithms. I've been thinking that these algorithms promoting bad content (for profit) are a bigger deal unpromoted (obscure) bad content.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Yup, I’m absolutely fine with algorithm suggestions not being covered under safe harbor rules, that’s where responsibility starts for the publisher.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
beej71 4y ago
This doesn't look like an "overturn 230" situation. Plaintiffs are saying that even though Google is protected when someone uploads a terrorist video, Google should _not_ be protected when Google itself _recommends_ a terrorist video.
mesozoic 4y ago
The internet kind of sucks now it went wrong somewhere along the way. Maybe turning it upside down and seeing where the pieces settle is a good thing. Just like those water/sand toys.

> In accepting the case, the Supreme Court has agreed to answer the question: Does Section 23 exempt interactive computer services from liability “if they specifically draw attention to information made available by another information content provider”? On the one hand, yes you should be responsible your own editorial choices in the content you publish. On the other, legislative power to impose that responsibility should be leashed to the existing narrow categories of unprotected speech, under strict scrutiny.

pyuser583 4y ago
What narrow categories are you talking about?
- hirundo 4y ago
  https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11072.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11072.pdf obscenity incitement defamation fraud fighting words true threats speech integral to criminal conduct child pornography I don't agree with all of these, but it's a significant limitation to a legislature to disallow legislation on other speech, and to judge restrictions on these strictly.

jeffbee 4y ago

Most of the articles on this site are unintelligible. Is it just posting LLM outputs?

dang 4y ago
(We've since changed the URL)

kyrra 4y ago

Blogspam? The WSJ article is the source here https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-says-supreme-court-ruling-could-potentially-upend-the-internet-11673553968 https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-says-supreme-court-rulin... https://archive.ph/LZfa8 https://archive.ph/LZfa8

dang 4y ago
Ok, we changed to that from https://techaint.com/2023/01/15/google-and-section-230-us-court-ruling-could-turn-the-internet-upside-down/ https://techaint.com/2023/01/15/google-and-section-230-us-co.... Thanks!

kube-system 4y ago

I sometimes wonder, if we never had 230 to begin with, if the internet would still be a decentralized collection of blogs and websites.

torstenvl 4y ago
No. 230 is why sites like geocities and tripod and blogger and livejournal and so on could exist in the first place.
- kube-system 4y ago
  Those sites are the beginnings of the centralization I’m talking about.
  - nostrademons 4y ago
    Previously the liability was held by the ISP that hosted the individual website with objectionable content. Section 230 was written in response to a pair of lawsuits against ISPs, not against bigger webhosting firms like Geocities or Tripod. Without it there would be a strong incentive not to host anything by arbitrary unvetted customers.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      The incentive would be to act as a dumb pipe, which absolved telecom providers from liability pre-230. (And still does today for unmoderated communications services)
      - torstenvl 4y ago
        There is no "dumb pipe" liability shield. There was no absolving of liability pre-230. And 230 — not some fairly tale alternative statute that mysteriously doesn't appear anywhere in the U.S. Code — is what provides that liability shield today, for moderated and unmoderated hosts and sites alike.

lumb63 4y ago

I’m a fan of a proposal by Vivek Ramaswamy, from his book Woke, Inc. Companies that want protection from liability for user content should not be able to censor any content not required by law. Companies that want to moderate content should not be afforded any liability protection.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
This would destroy Hacker News, which employs heavy moderation.
- christkv 4y ago
  It would be interesting to know what would happen to sites like Reddit where there is community moderation. Might be still possible as it’s not the company doing it.
  - 0x_rs 4y ago
    I don't know how it would be possible to distinguish between an unaffiliated volunteer and a company. They'd have to sign a statement, I don't see it being feasible. What I think would be a great step forward is moderation transparency, of which there is none on sites like reddit (and it's much needed, their moderation in large communities is embarrassing, see the /r/art thing recently), but I guess that is also without issues due to privacy regulations. What it is not possible to get away with is no user-generated content moderation, it's only going to become more strict with less leniency for platforms, not the opposite, see: EU proposals on the matter pending.
- lumb63 4y ago
  If they deem themselves fit to censor their users, why shouldn’t they be liable for the content their users produce?
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Because the outcome informs the choice. Regardless of the pithiness of the aphorism, if the result of its application is the destruction of a site like HN then it doesn't matter what the aphorism says - it's functionally a HN-destroying bomb. It's a deontological reversal. When someone points out the consequences of the action, the intentions necessarily become the realization of those consequences. So why shouldn't they be liable? Because that liability is yoked directly to its destruction. They are inseparable.

Kon-Peki 4y ago

If anyone is interested in the plaintiff's argument, it is here [1] Argument #1: > The lower courts have mistakenly interpreted “publisher” to have its everyday meaning, referring to an entity or person in the business of publishing, and have at times compounded that error by insisting that section 230(c)(1) applies to virtually any activity in which such a publisher might engage, including making recommendations. But “publisher” in section 230(c)(1) is used in the narrow sense drawn from defamation law. If section 230(c)(1) is properly so understood, the imposition of liability based on a recommendation would not in every instance treat the defendant as a publisher within the meaning of that provision. Argument #2 > the content at issue must have been provided by “another information content provider,” not by the defendant itself. Recommendations may contain information from the defendant, such as a hyperlink with the URL of material the defendant hopes the user will download, or notifications of new postings the defendant hopes the user will find interesting. The Ninth Circuit erred in holding that URLs and notifications are not information within the meaning of section 230(c)(1). Argument #3 > the Ninth and Second Circuits erred in holding that section 230(c)(1) protects a defendant if it sends to a user content which the user did not actually request. A defendant is acting as the provider of an “interactive computer service,” and thus within the scope of section 230(c)(1), when it is providing “access...to a computer server.” A computer functions as a “server,” as that term is used in section 230, only when it is providing to a user a file (such as text, or a video), which the user has actually requested, or is performing other tasks (such as a search) at the request of the user. Hey, Google may win this (I am pretty sure they will). But this claim that a loss would turn the internet upside down is histrionics. No, if Google loses, the internet will still be just fine: > Thus, although some practices that might be characterized as recommendations could satisfy all three elements of the section 230(c)(1) defense, others would not. > Search engines are in two important respects different from social media sites. First, search engines only provide users with materials in response to requests from the users themselves, and thus necessarily function as providers of interactive computer services. Second, although search engines provide users with hyperlinks embedded with URLs, those URLs are created by the website where the material at issue is located, not by the search engine itself. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/20221130182721608_GonzalezPetMerits.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/202...

mikem170 4y ago

I would like to see recommendation algorithms brought into this discussion. On the one hand there's moderation to censor, or remove, offensive, dangerous, or disruptive content. I feel that section 230 does a fair job addressing this. On the other hand there's recommendation engines often promoting outrageous content, putting things in front of everyone, in order to optimize for engagement and profit. Isn't this acting as a publisher, choosing what to promote, instead of showing people chronological, friend, or user selected feeds? These companies are in control over much of what is being presented to people. There's been massacres committed in various countries because big tech companies promoted certain messages, based on their secret algorithms. I've been thinking that these algorithms promoting bad content (for profit) are a bigger deal unpromoted (obscure) bad content.

colechristensen 4y ago
Yup, I’m absolutely fine with algorithm suggestions not being covered under safe harbor rules, that’s where responsibility starts for the publisher.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

beej71 4y ago

This doesn't look like an "overturn 230" situation. Plaintiffs are saying that even though Google is protected when someone uploads a terrorist video, Google should _not_ be protected when Google itself _recommends_ a terrorist video.

mesozoic 4y ago

The internet kind of sucks now it went wrong somewhere along the way. Maybe turning it upside down and seeing where the pieces settle is a good thing. Just like those water/sand toys.