5 ms·

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

by 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.
mjevans 4y ago
That goes against what I thought the entire spirit and point of 230 was. That _some_ level of moderation or content policy, to any degree, did not imply full curation / approval of all the content period. It allows a community or website the ability to enforce against the most obviously problematic content while not forcing it to over censor against what might be reasonable discourse or simply emotionally heated or slightly factually incorrect things. Nor do they need to E.G. investigate if something potentially libelous is true or not; that becomes something for the other parties involved to work out on their own via traditional channels.
- lumb63 4y ago
  The problem has, in my opinion, become opposite to what Section 230 was meant to solve. The majority of online communication platforms are, in my opinion, “over censoring” exactly as you described. If they can be trusted to over censor, why can’t they be trusted to censor to the extent required to avoid liability? It’s obvious to me that we shouldn’t be expecting any company to have 100% correct censorship against illegal content, so we shouldn’t allow them to police other content to such a great degree.
  - yodon 4y ago
    >If they can be trusted to over censor, why can’t they be trusted to censor to the extent required to avoid liability? Because the former is nearly impossible to avoid and the later is nearly impossible to accomplish.
yodon 4y ago
Extremely simple rules and policies make for great sound bites but they rarely handle complex problems well. The more dogmatically you apply a simple sound bite solution, the worse complex problems become.
guiambros 4y ago
Mandatory read [1] whenever someone recommends easy hot takes to reform 230. Also [2] is a good one for those who think that current platforms "overmoderate" content. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre... [2] https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-speed-run-the-content-moderation-learning-curve/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you...
- lumb63 4y ago
  Your first source talks about all the things 230 is and is not. It’s good information. But just because something is codified in law and decided in court cases does not mean that it is how the world ought to be. Agreed that under Section 230 as it is today, all the author says is true. But none of their content is about reforming or changing Section 230; it is all about interpreting it as it is today. Regarding [2], it is wise (necessary?) for any online platform to obey laws in places where they operate. But when I read about censoring spam or hate speech for instance, I can’t help but think of the scene in Game of Thrones where (forgive my poor recollection) a wildling tells Jon snow how lacking in freedom he is despite thinking he is “free”. Anyone advocating for unabridged (legal) free speech ought to be aware of the fact that there will be speech they do not want to see on their platforms if they get it. That is the price of freedom.

by lumb63 4y ago

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.

mjevans 4y ago

That goes against what I thought the entire spirit and point of 230 was. That _some_ level of moderation or content policy, to any degree, did not imply full curation / approval of all the content period. It allows a community or website the ability to enforce against the most obviously problematic content while not forcing it to over censor against what might be reasonable discourse or simply emotionally heated or slightly factually incorrect things. Nor do they need to E.G. investigate if something potentially libelous is true or not; that becomes something for the other parties involved to work out on their own via traditional channels.

lumb63 4y ago
The problem has, in my opinion, become opposite to what Section 230 was meant to solve. The majority of online communication platforms are, in my opinion, “over censoring” exactly as you described. If they can be trusted to over censor, why can’t they be trusted to censor to the extent required to avoid liability? It’s obvious to me that we shouldn’t be expecting any company to have 100% correct censorship against illegal content, so we shouldn’t allow them to police other content to such a great degree.
- yodon 4y ago
  >If they can be trusted to over censor, why can’t they be trusted to censor to the extent required to avoid liability? Because the former is nearly impossible to avoid and the later is nearly impossible to accomplish.

yodon 4y ago

Extremely simple rules and policies make for great sound bites but they rarely handle complex problems well. The more dogmatically you apply a simple sound bite solution, the worse complex problems become.

guiambros 4y ago

Mandatory read [1] whenever someone recommends easy hot takes to reform 230. Also [2] is a good one for those who think that current platforms "overmoderate" content. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre... [2] https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you-speed-run-the-content-moderation-learning-curve/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/hey-elon-let-me-help-you...

lumb63 4y ago
Your first source talks about all the things 230 is and is not. It’s good information. But just because something is codified in law and decided in court cases does not mean that it is how the world ought to be. Agreed that under Section 230 as it is today, all the author says is true. But none of their content is about reforming or changing Section 230; it is all about interpreting it as it is today. Regarding [2], it is wise (necessary?) for any online platform to obey laws in places where they operate. But when I read about censoring spam or hate speech for instance, I can’t help but think of the scene in Game of Thrones where (forgive my poor recollection) a wildling tells Jon snow how lacking in freedom he is despite thinking he is “free”. Anyone advocating for unabridged (legal) free speech ought to be aware of the fact that there will be speech they do not want to see on their platforms if they get it. That is the price of freedom.