8 ms·

Supreme Court Poised to Reconsider Key Tenets of Online Speech

35 points by mikhael 4y ago

supriyo-biswas 4y ago
https://archive.ph/1GuOQ https://archive.ph/1GuOQ
COGlory 4y ago
>the Supreme Court is expected to discuss whether to hear two cases that challenge laws in Texas and Florida barring online platforms from taking down certain political content. Next month, the court is scheduled to hear a case that questions Section 230, a 1996 statute that protects the platforms from liability for the content posted by their users.
- ErikCorry 4y ago
  The Texas and Florida laws sound to me like compelled speech which the Court doesn't typically approve of. Section 230 increases free speech by limiting the liability of the platforms. I have a hard time seeing how that could be unconstitutional.
  - rektide 4y ago
    I've seen reform-section-230 folks have literally nothing to say about this point. 230 is the only basis that protects those who would host speech online. Murkying the freedom to host seems murderously bad for the internet & speech.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    > Section 230 increases free speech by limiting the liability of the platforms. Section 230 decreases free speech because platforms are able to curate their content and shut down certain voices.
    - Analemma_ 4y ago
      "The ability to curate their content" does not come from section 230, it is guaranteed by the First Amendment and the prohibition against compelled speech. All Section 230 does is ensure that a site which does more moderation is not exposed to more liability than a site which does less. Between this and your other comment above, you seem very confused as to what Section 230 actually says. I think you need to do some more reading about it before posting comments here.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        > I think you need to do some more reading about it before posting comments here. Unnecessary. I am aware. It allows you to moderate yet still be treated as a neutral non-moderated purveyor of information.
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        No, it allows you to attempt to moderate all illegal content, and not be punished if you miss some. It doesn't have anything to do with curation vs dumb firehose. It was made to allow websites to have user generated content without fear of the obvious result of user generated content. Without section 230, or the protections it provides, website operators are liable for the crap that users put on their website. Zuckerberg would not open himself up to liability, he would lock down posting anything on facebook that wasn't extremely, obviously mundane, and probably try to pivot.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        It doesn't say illegal, it says good Samaritan blocking of objectionable material. If it doesn't have anything to do with curation (publisher) vs firehose then what does this mean: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker What is a publisher and why do they need to say this? What distinction is there? Were they treated as a publisher before Section 230?
  - amadeuspagel 4y ago
    > I have a hard time seeing how that could be unconstitutional. That case is not about whether section 230 is constitutional, it's about how it should be interpreted.
    - ErikCorry 4y ago
      I think you are right, but this means the 230 haters will be super disappointed. Section 230 is absolutely clear that the social media companies are allowed to censor as much as they want. It's the express purpose of the section to allow "censorship" without incurring liability for those things you fail to censor. The idea that by recommending or curating content the website owner loses the right to censor (that 230 explicitly provides) feels like a huge stretch to me. So the case becomes pretty narrow: Whether a) the action of YouTube promoting content is protected by 230 or b) promoting content is only protected by normal free speech rules including the 1st Amendment.
amadeuspagel 4y ago
Where does this idea that section 230 doesn't apply to recommendations because they "can count as their own form of content" stop? Why should it only apply to personalized recommendations? Why shouldn't the HN frontpage, or any HN comment page count as "its own form of content"?
- Kon-Peki 4y ago
  You may want to read the actual arguments that are being made [1]. Keep in mind that the US Congress passed a law in the 1990s (including section 230) that says you can't sue someone for x, y, and z. But then they passed another law in the 2000s that says you can sue somebody for a, b, and c. Resolving this apparent contradiction is exactly the point of the Supreme Court taking up this case. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/20221130182721608_GonzalezPetMerits.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/202...
  - amadeuspagel 4y ago
    > Third, 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. I don't even see how that's relevant. When I open youtube, I'm requesting recommendations. It's like a search, except I'm not searching for anything on a specific topic, but just for things that will interest me. (Some search engines, like HN's, allow an empty search, which in HN's case just shows all posts sorted by score[1]. Think of recommendations as a personalized empty search.) [1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?q= https://hn.algolia.com/?q=
- henryfjordan 4y ago
  HNs algorithm is driven directly by UGC (upvotes) and basic math. You could argue that HN should get 230 protection because the front page is decided by the users. YouTube uses some algorithm that has all kinds of levers that YouTube controls, not the users.
goodSteveramos 4y ago
The idea that a tiny number of billionaire investors who invested early in social media startups get to decide what political speech Americans are allowed to express on the internet makes a mockery of our values as Americans. Social media is the digital equivalent of telephone or postal service and at some point the largest social media sites must be regulated the same politically-neutral way those public and privately owned communications services are.
- coremoff 4y ago
  I think the issue is that they want to be treated like common carriers (because then they aren't open to law suits about the content they allow) but also want to advertise and advertisers aren't keen on adverts appearing next to unmoderated content; one day they might get over the cognitive dissonance required, but I imagine that the end result will not be particularly consumer friendly, one way or the other.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    I think they shouldn’t be common carriers. That said taking away their common carrier status will mean only those with the resources to sanitize at scale can compete without litigation risk. The existing players can afford it, and will likely build better and better LLM classifiers to protect themselves and auto police content. But the essential result would be there will be no new players.
- ErikCorry 4y ago
  The letters pages controlled by billionaire newspaper owners were "the public square" yet the courts did not intervene.
  - t-writescode 4y ago
    Arguably, that was a curation and numbers issue. When it changes from 10s of letters a day to billions, curation becomes less of a concern and the argument can resurface. Edit: for an additional example of this concern in the other direction - when a company or person or government tracks the movements of 10s of its citizens who are under active investigation, that's not seen as much of a problem. It's a numbers issue. When the same can track tens of thousands or hundreds of millions, suddenly it's a human rights issue around privacy.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
LatteLazy 4y ago
>The suit argues that recommendations can count as their own form of content produced by the platform, removing them from the protection of Section 230. Aside from the obvious point that all sites from day one had something similar to a "recommendation" algo, can you sue someone for recommending something that turns out bad? If the NYT recommends a restaurant and I go and get food poisoning, are they liable for that?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hgsgm 4y ago
Sites should just let people choose red bubble, blue bubble, or no bubble, so everyone gets what they want. It's not so big a change.
klondike_ 4y ago
I don't blame platforms like Facebook, Twitter, etc for removing content subjectively. After all, they need to control spam. Unfortunately things have been stepped up a notch recently and Tier 1 ISPs are now engaged in site blocking themselves. Even if you run all of your own server, these ISPs can prevent customers from connecting to your web site. Only around 5 Tier 1 ISPs control access to all of the internet. This was the situation Net Neutrality was designed to prevent, ironically gutted by Republicans in 2016.

35 points by mikhael 4y ago

https://archive.ph/1GuOQ https://archive.ph/1GuOQ

>the Supreme Court is expected to discuss whether to hear two cases that challenge laws in Texas and Florida barring online platforms from taking down certain political content. Next month, the court is scheduled to hear a case that questions Section 230, a 1996 statute that protects the platforms from liability for the content posted by their users.

ErikCorry 4y ago
The Texas and Florida laws sound to me like compelled speech which the Court doesn't typically approve of. Section 230 increases free speech by limiting the liability of the platforms. I have a hard time seeing how that could be unconstitutional.
- rektide 4y ago
  I've seen reform-section-230 folks have literally nothing to say about this point. 230 is the only basis that protects those who would host speech online. Murkying the freedom to host seems murderously bad for the internet & speech.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  > Section 230 increases free speech by limiting the liability of the platforms. Section 230 decreases free speech because platforms are able to curate their content and shut down certain voices.
  - Analemma_ 4y ago
    "The ability to curate their content" does not come from section 230, it is guaranteed by the First Amendment and the prohibition against compelled speech. All Section 230 does is ensure that a site which does more moderation is not exposed to more liability than a site which does less. Between this and your other comment above, you seem very confused as to what Section 230 actually says. I think you need to do some more reading about it before posting comments here.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      > I think you need to do some more reading about it before posting comments here. Unnecessary. I am aware. It allows you to moderate yet still be treated as a neutral non-moderated purveyor of information.
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        No, it allows you to attempt to moderate all illegal content, and not be punished if you miss some. It doesn't have anything to do with curation vs dumb firehose. It was made to allow websites to have user generated content without fear of the obvious result of user generated content. Without section 230, or the protections it provides, website operators are liable for the crap that users put on their website. Zuckerberg would not open himself up to liability, he would lock down posting anything on facebook that wasn't extremely, obviously mundane, and probably try to pivot.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        It doesn't say illegal, it says good Samaritan blocking of objectionable material. If it doesn't have anything to do with curation (publisher) vs firehose then what does this mean: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker What is a publisher and why do they need to say this? What distinction is there? Were they treated as a publisher before Section 230?
- amadeuspagel 4y ago
  > I have a hard time seeing how that could be unconstitutional. That case is not about whether section 230 is constitutional, it's about how it should be interpreted.
  - ErikCorry 4y ago
    I think you are right, but this means the 230 haters will be super disappointed. Section 230 is absolutely clear that the social media companies are allowed to censor as much as they want. It's the express purpose of the section to allow "censorship" without incurring liability for those things you fail to censor. The idea that by recommending or curating content the website owner loses the right to censor (that 230 explicitly provides) feels like a huge stretch to me. So the case becomes pretty narrow: Whether a) the action of YouTube promoting content is protected by 230 or b) promoting content is only protected by normal free speech rules including the 1st Amendment.

amadeuspagel 4y ago

Where does this idea that section 230 doesn't apply to recommendations because they "can count as their own form of content" stop? Why should it only apply to personalized recommendations? Why shouldn't the HN frontpage, or any HN comment page count as "its own form of content"?

Kon-Peki 4y ago
You may want to read the actual arguments that are being made [1]. Keep in mind that the US Congress passed a law in the 1990s (including section 230) that says you can't sue someone for x, y, and z. But then they passed another law in the 2000s that says you can sue somebody for a, b, and c. Resolving this apparent contradiction is exactly the point of the Supreme Court taking up this case. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/20221130182721608_GonzalezPetMerits.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/202...
- amadeuspagel 4y ago
  > Third, 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. I don't even see how that's relevant. When I open youtube, I'm requesting recommendations. It's like a search, except I'm not searching for anything on a specific topic, but just for things that will interest me. (Some search engines, like HN's, allow an empty search, which in HN's case just shows all posts sorted by score[1]. Think of recommendations as a personalized empty search.) [1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?q= https://hn.algolia.com/?q=
henryfjordan 4y ago
HNs algorithm is driven directly by UGC (upvotes) and basic math. You could argue that HN should get 230 protection because the front page is decided by the users. YouTube uses some algorithm that has all kinds of levers that YouTube controls, not the users.

goodSteveramos 4y ago

The idea that a tiny number of billionaire investors who invested early in social media startups get to decide what political speech Americans are allowed to express on the internet makes a mockery of our values as Americans. Social media is the digital equivalent of telephone or postal service and at some point the largest social media sites must be regulated the same politically-neutral way those public and privately owned communications services are.

coremoff 4y ago
I think the issue is that they want to be treated like common carriers (because then they aren't open to law suits about the content they allow) but also want to advertise and advertisers aren't keen on adverts appearing next to unmoderated content; one day they might get over the cognitive dissonance required, but I imagine that the end result will not be particularly consumer friendly, one way or the other.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  I think they shouldn’t be common carriers. That said taking away their common carrier status will mean only those with the resources to sanitize at scale can compete without litigation risk. The existing players can afford it, and will likely build better and better LLM classifiers to protect themselves and auto police content. But the essential result would be there will be no new players.
ErikCorry 4y ago
The letters pages controlled by billionaire newspaper owners were "the public square" yet the courts did not intervene.
- t-writescode 4y ago
  Arguably, that was a curation and numbers issue. When it changes from 10s of letters a day to billions, curation becomes less of a concern and the argument can resurface. Edit: for an additional example of this concern in the other direction - when a company or person or government tracks the movements of 10s of its citizens who are under active investigation, that's not seen as much of a problem. It's a numbers issue. When the same can track tens of thousands or hundreds of millions, suddenly it's a human rights issue around privacy.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

LatteLazy 4y ago

>The suit argues that recommendations can count as their own form of content produced by the platform, removing them from the protection of Section 230. Aside from the obvious point that all sites from day one had something similar to a "recommendation" algo, can you sue someone for recommending something that turns out bad? If the NYT recommends a restaurant and I go and get food poisoning, are they liable for that?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hgsgm 4y ago

Sites should just let people choose red bubble, blue bubble, or no bubble, so everyone gets what they want. It's not so big a change.

klondike_ 4y ago

I don't blame platforms like Facebook, Twitter, etc for removing content subjectively. After all, they need to control spam. Unfortunately things have been stepped up a notch recently and Tier 1 ISPs are now engaged in site blocking themselves. Even if you run all of your own server, these ISPs can prevent customers from connecting to your web site. Only around 5 Tier 1 ISPs control access to all of the internet. This was the situation Net Neutrality was designed to prevent, ironically gutted by Republicans in 2016.