20 ms·

Supreme Court allows Reddit mods to anonymously defend Section 230

230 points by taubek 4y ago

photochemsyn 4y ago
[flagged]
- orra 4y ago
  > noting that sped-up clinical trials for vaccines might be missing some issues related to vaccine efficacy and side effects, there's a problem. Clinical trials weren't sped up: there's your problem.
  - photochemsyn 4y ago
    Not to go to far off topic, but: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-319 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-319 > "Operation Warp Speed was a federal effort that supported multiple COVID-19 vaccine candidates to speed up development. We analyzed the program's vaccine candidates and found that their development followed traditional practices, with some adaptations. For example, some clinical trial phases overlapped with each other and with animal studies to accelerate development." Notice this probably played a role in the fact that the clinical trials didn't reveal that the vaccines didn't have much effect in preventing transmission (although severity of symptoms was clearly reduced). This discussion would have led to a perma-ban on the main Covid subreddits, I believe.
    - orra 4y ago
      > For example, some clinical trial phases overlapped with each other and with animal studies to accelerate development. Right, but GP was misrepresenting this. Having phases 1 and 2 overlap when phase 1 is clearly going well was at worst a risk to the phase 2 participants. It wasn't skimping on the length of phase 2 or 3, so there was never an increased risk of dangerous vaccines for the public. > Notice this probably played a role in the fact that the clinical trials didn't reveal that the vaccines didn't have much effect in preventing transmission (although severity of symptoms was clearly reduced). I don't think measuring reduction in transmission is a primary concern of vaccine trials? It also seems quite hard to do, without a significant proportion of the population being vaccinated.
      - edgyquant 4y ago
        >Having phases 1 and 2 overlap when phase 1 is clearly going well was at worst a risk to the phase 2 participants. It wasn't skimping on the length of phase 2 or 3, so there was never an increased risk of dangerous vaccines for the public. Irrelevant "actually"ing after being objectively wrong. Don't cherry pick to shutdown a conversation: and if you do don't be wrong in your attack.
        orra 4y ago
        > and if you do don't be wrong in your attack. OP was clearly said the trials were sped up and that compromised safety. That's nonsense.
        edgyquant 4y ago
        That trials were sped up is not nonsense as that is exactly what happened. You disagree it compromised safety but that doesn’t change you were wrong as the other poster pointed out to you. It went against industry norms to get a vaccine out as soon as possible: that an overlap of trials is considered equally safe by some is irrelevant to that point. Regardless, you did not argue against the posters main point but instead chose to push back against what you thought would be an easy win and you did so with a factually incorrect rebuttal.
      - AlbertCory 4y ago
        Clinical trials are phased for very good reasons, AFAIK: phase 1 is for safety phase 2 is for efficacy phase 3 is for dosage They're not the same. Shortening Phase 1 is automatically a compromise with safety.
        swimfar 4y ago
        Were the duration of the phases shortened? The quote makes it sound like the duration was kept the same, just that the following phase started before the end of the previous phase.
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    stop cherry picking, the crust of that persons comment is about censorship
    - orra 4y ago
      We're talking about private (not government) censorship of inaccurate information.
      - edgyquant 4y ago
        Which you did not address
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  > A far better option is to rely entirely on a transparent algorithmic model, in which automated tools like lists of trigger keywords and contextual analysis that cause posts to be flagged for further review are clearly visible to the user audience. This is the worst idea I've read on HN and shows you've never actually dealt with users at scale. The moment your algorithm is visible, users will know how to beat it. Your list of 'trigger keywords' becomes a weapon both to harass normal users (by potentially tricking them into writing the trigger weapons) as well as by trolls because they know exactly how to modify the word to get around the filter. Social media is no different from a game, and when people figure out how a game works, they learn how to break it.
LinuxBender 4y ago
RFC 2119 agrees [1] as does US law [2] with exception of Illinois apparently. Seems to be ill defined and not preferred in the UK, sometimes deemed inappropriate [3]. Perhaps the UK will interpret as per RFC-6919 [4] instead. 1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification. [1] - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119 [2] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/shall https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/shall [3] - https://www.law-office.co.uk/art_shall-1.htm https://www.law-office.co.uk/art_shall-1.htm [4] - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919
montron 4y ago
[flagged]
xbar 4y ago
I fear a ruling where the interpretation of Section 230 puts dang at risk of liability for all of his necessary and appropriate historic moderation.
- prettyStandard 4y ago
  I'm pretty new here. Can you elaborate? Edit: On the "necessary and appropriate historic moderation" part.
  - Aaron2222 4y ago
    dang is the moderator here.
  - DoneWithAllThat 4y ago
    The claim by some is that 230 protections shouldn’t apply if the site at all influences what is shown to other users - essentially, moderation. There’s all sorts of made up distinctions between publisher and web site (most of it disingenuous) but it generally boils down to various political factions upset that the “wrong” sort of content isn’t moderated away, or the “right” sort of content is. Which is right or wrong depends on how you lean politically.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > if the site at all influences what is shown to other users - essentially, moderation Which is bizarre, given the legislative history of Section 230, whose entire point was to protect and encourage private censorship by sites and users.
      - hgsgm 4y ago
        What parent meant to mean is that "the claim by some is that section 230 is bad/unconstitutional and should be removed". > A key protection shielding social media companies from liability for hosting third-party content—Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—is set to face its first US Supreme Court challenge.
theknocker 4y ago
[dead]
blindriver 4y ago
A more important point about Reddit specifically is that when Reddit finally goes IPO, all the mods get ZERO. The investors and the engineers and all the workers at Reddit will become rich, but the people who do the most important work, as outlined by the brief, are the anonymous moderators that create the culture of every subreddit. They get NOTHING. I find it amazing that this hasn't been brought up by the moderators themselves, and they're okay getting all the outcome and profits from their hard work literally picked away by Reddit. They don't even share in the profits of the advertising revenue from their subreddits! It's really incredible to me.
- cactusplant7374 4y ago
  They also get to make arbitrary decisions with no accountability. Essentially, the site is their personal fiefdom. Why would they waste their time unless they are benefiting in some way?
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    Probably the same reason people waste their time playing video games or reading science fiction. Scoundrels!!
    - cactusplant7374 4y ago
      In those cases you aren’t exercising control over someone else’s creative expression.
      - fnordpiglet 4y ago
        You’re ascribing a negative motive by establishing one could exist. Surely there are petty tyrants on Reddit. But the much simpler, most generous, and most likely explanation is they enjoy a hobby and enjoy fostering a healthy community around their hobby, and that this itself is a hobby of theirs. The word moderator wasn’t invented for social media, and the role is crucial in any healthy intellectual community. Because your creative expression may very well be disruptive to everyone else’s, and while you’re free to be creative in your expressions in general, others are free to exclude you from their community. The moderator gets the unpleasant job of being the executor of that will. I think the most important thing is most moderators I know hate the function of moderator. But the community is important enough they do it anyways. So, I guess I take it back. It’s more like producing a video game or editing science fiction. It’s work we do to be sure everyone can enjoy a hobby we love.
lucb1e 4y ago
I'm apparently out of the loop enough to understand all the words in the article but still have no idea what it's talking about. From context, I'm getting that it's something to do with volunteering and needing anonymity and immunity for when you then accidentally allow terrorists recruit followers? And there already exists law number 230 for this but the lawsuit tries to get it declared invalid? Can someone share maybe a short comment on what actually is going on here?
- i_hate_pigeons 4y ago
  here https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/10h2fz7/reddits_defense_of_section_230_to_the_supreme/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/10h2fz7/reddits_def...
- jcranmer 4y ago
  Ostensibly, the issue presented is this: > Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limits the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information. The background is that the families of a victim of a terrorist attack are suing Google for hosting an ISIS recruitment video on Youtube, for which Google has clear and undisputed immunity because of §230, and the plaintiffs are trying to find any argument they can stand on to make the suit stick (they've lost at all lower levels of the court). What I quoted above was the explicit question presented to SCOTUS, but from reading some of the actual briefs, there's almost no discussion of this actual question, with everyone instead wanting to discuss §230 as a whole and not its narrow application to recommendation content. Of the briefs I did skim, I liked the US solicitor general's position the best: recommendations are not protected by §230, but it's not enough to say that recommendation engine produced objectionable content, since the content itself is protected. Essentially, the recommendation would have to be in some way unreasonable, and the burden of that unreasonability is presumably on the plaintiff's part, and these plaintiffs are clearly unable or unwilling to properly make those allegations.
breck 4y ago
[flagged]
- noirbot 4y ago
  I was under the impression we often allowed anonymous testimony in courts for criminal trials, often to protect the identity of the witness and avoid the opportunity for them to be coerced or intimidated. I imagine often the situation is that your identity is verified, but just not entered into the public record? If anything, the point of it is because "we should not listen to cowards" is the justification for the worst kind of heckler's veto. It's the exact reason it was hard to get testimony against organized crime. If there's a good chance you'll be physically attacked, kidnapped, or financially ruined for trying to bring justice, you're simply encouraging more violence and threats in order to protect those already in power.
  - breck 4y ago
    > I was under the impression we often allowed anonymous testimony in courts for criminal trials We specifically do not. The 6th Amendment: "...to be confronted with the witnesses against him" https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness
    - noirbot 4y ago
      Sure, and plenty of constitutional rights have exceptions with balancing tests. You can't say literally anything under the first amendment, you can't own literally anything that could be used as "arms" under the second, the definition of "due process" is regularly in question when it comes to the fifth amendment and has been a basis of plenty of expansive rulings outside of what you may think is a reasonable part of the amendment. I was perhaps over-stating when I said "often", but it's not patently absurd that there could be an accepted exception in this case.
  - ameister14 4y ago
    I don't think it's 'often' and it's only in cases where there is a real and credible threat of harm to the witness. While that might make it harder to go after organized crime, the US believes it is important that, when you are accused of doing something, you get to confront your accuser. There's a really interesting law review article about this from 2020 which gets into the idea that, through misconduct, a defendant can waive their right to confront the witness at trial. Here's a link: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol39/iss4/3/ https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol39/iss4/3/
ecf 4y ago
> Unlike other companies that hire content moderators, the content that Reddit displays is “primarily driven by humans—not by centralized algorithms.” Reddit’s entire business model is Astroturfing-as-a-service, so I don’t believe this for a second.
- throwayyy479087 4y ago
  Ding ding ding. Being forced to reveal this information is why they'll never IPO.
willnonya 4y ago
While I support upholding section 230 I find irony in reddit proclaiming their support for users and everyday citizens. The majority of the site is overrun by zealots and trolls who relentlessly punish any non-conformance woth their chosen orthodoxy. Their moderation rarely maintains communities but rather restricts discussion, dissent and freedom of expression. This is like the Stazi proclaiming support for privacy laws.
- paulpauper 4y ago
  This was way worse during Covid , I know, even though before Covid it was already very bad. People were banned just for asking questions, merely for dissenting from the narrative, which was constantly changing, like about masks.
  - shagie 4y ago
    The issue that moderators face is the "what is the relative worth of this topic in this subreddit compared to the additional (personal) cost of moderating it?" For many hot topic items no matter how innocuous or relevant to the subreddit, unless there is a large and active moderator team that can handle the fallout and apply appropriate anti-flame measures, the course that is easiest to take is "just delete it as soon as it starts." The moderation tools are blunt. Remove and approve. Shadow bans aren't things that can be done easily by mods (possible, but takes a fair bit of manual curation and getting into the automod setup). Delayed visibility can't be done (I'd love to have a "any reply to a comment that has a significant number of votes in that post is delayed by 15 minutes"). If there's a post that is "this will take me 1 minute to delete now" or "this will take me 1 hour to clean up later" - that 1 minute to delete now will likely win every time. Note that the alternative isn't "but you can just leave it up and users will behave" - it is "this sub will become unmoderated, full of spam, and eventually closed down." If the mod is at all interested in the topic, that's not a desirable state.
- llanowarelves 4y ago
  A while back, somebody made a moderator graph, that showed what dozens and dozens of subreddits individual moderators moderated. You could see their "web". It not only confirmed the leanings and behavior but undeniably so. It is why "redditor" exists as an insulting term, but fb/twitter/etc don't have one. Not necessarily just the users, but the mods too.
DannyBee 4y ago
FWIW - The supreme court generally will allow just about any amicus brief. So this is not particularly special in that respect.
paulpauper 4y ago
The notion of Reddit mods being selfless unpaid volunteers is misleading. They wield considerable power, and it's a desired position. Also, mods have been known to engage in payola and other deception for personal gain/profit. And too many arbitrary rules, too many shadow bans/deletions, etc.
- notatoad 4y ago
  it's crazy to me that reddit doesn't have staff doing the moderation job for the bigger subreddits. most of the content on the front page is from 5-10 subreddits which are all moderated by the same super-moderators, who effectively set the policy for what content is allowed and not allowed. and they do it with complete autonomy and independence. either that, or the few anonymous people who run reddit actually are reddit staff, and reddit prefers to keep the appearance of subreddits being "community-run" because unpopular mod actions can be swept away by retiring a moderator's profile.
  - jeoqn 4y ago
    They don’t have to pay anybody… there’s no shortage of people who are more than happy to wield the power of being a mod and share the political and corporate values of the Reddit staff. Not to mention Reddit doesn’t have as many legal responsibilities over them if they don’t pay them I guess.
  - water-your-self 4y ago
    They generally prefer to retire whole subreddits
- enslavedrobot 4y ago
  Not to mention the obvious political bias in many subs that state they are neutral and objective.
  - robswc 4y ago
    That is one of my biggest issues with Reddit. One big gaslighting operation. Even if you agree with 9/10 opinions, If you disagree with one, you are made out to be an “other” and an adversary. Just look at how dis-functional it can be, even when everyone is on board with the same basic principals (r/antiwork)
honkler 4y ago
[flagged]
codingdave 4y ago
To be clear, from the article: "Reddit received special permission from the Supreme Court to include anonymous comments from Reddit mods in its brief." This is not saying the court decided anything - it is just saying it is allowing commentary from mods to be submitted to the court, without knowing their identity.
- dehrmann 4y ago
  That matches what the title says
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    You don't need permission to submit an amicus brief any more: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/12/court-drops-consent-requirement-for-filing-of-amicus-briefs-makes-other-tweaks-to-rules/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/12/court-drops-consent-requi...
    - nl 4y ago
      That's true, but they did need special permission to leep the identities of the moderators anonymous: This, Reddit’s spokesperson notes, is “a significant departure from normal Supreme Court procedure.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit defending online privacy, championed the court’s decision to allow moderators to contribute comments anonymously. “We’re happy the Supreme Court recognized the First Amendment rights of Reddit moderators to speak to the court about their concerns,” EFF’s senior staff attorney, Sophia Cope, told Ars. “It is quite understandable why those individuals may be hesitant to identify themselves should they be subject to liability in the future for moderating others’ speech on Reddit.” I'd note both the EFF and Reddit said this was unusual.
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        Perhaps, but then again maybe it's just really good PR.
      - killjoywashere 4y ago
wolverine876 4y ago
I'm concerned about the US Supreme Court's ability to handle a subtle, technical issue tied to new media. They need to take into account all the stakeholders, rights, law, and the dynamics of social media, and come up with an innovative solution that meets all needs fairly and clearly. I wonder how many there even use social media, and I'm especially concerned that the Court is now oriented toward, and many members selected for, partisanship. They are there to find partisan advantage in rulings, not to be legal geniuses with deep commitment and knowledge of justice and fairness, with deep judicial temperment - there are not there as Solomons. That puts them at a loss for complex issues, expecially unfamiliar ones, though I'm sure they will find a partisan angle. Whatever your politics: The reactionary conservative movement, with its campaign to politicize everything (now working on the FBI and Department of Justice, for example), has permanently degraded the country; we won't have these institutions back for generations. People don't want to face the loss, but it's already happened and continues to worsen before our eyes. EDIT: People who support politicization (or corruption or disinformation or other damaging behavior) argue to normalize it - it's always that way, everyone does it, it's unavoidable, it's 'human nature'. I have warmongers now telling me that it's inevitable human nature. But that's not the case; we can have meaningfully less or more partisanship (especially in courts), corruption, disinformation, and warfare. I can see it with my own eyes now; I was here before 2016, and I know about other places and times and people. It's a bunch of nonsense and everybody knows it. We control our fate, through knowledge and reason, through a collective commitment to good. Our predecessors did it, without the institutions and mechanisms and knowledge they bequeathed to us. With our inheritance couldn't have it easier; what are we bequeathing to the next generation? Despair? Corruption and war? What a shame that would be, with all we were given.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Our court system routinely handles far more technical issues than online publishing. Like every modern country, we regulate everything from water reclamation to aviation.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    I'm talking about SCOTUS. Can you give examples there? Trial (district) and circuit appealate courts are different - though they also have been politicized to degrees. Regulation is handled in the executive branch. Just because we regulate it, or it's tried in court, doesn't mean it's done well. That's the issue.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
srj 4y ago
If you haven't already I recommend reading the text of section 230. It's very short and takes only a minute or two: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
- _8j50 4y ago
  I don't think it should be repealed but its protections should only apply to users and content providers acting in good faith and best effort to proactively prevent harmful content. Revenge porn for a moderate example: not verifying the provenance if the content and validity of the submitter by the porn site or users who knowningly upvote or positively comment should not be protected. There needs to be an incentive beyond the goodwill of site owners and users. Look at twitter with elon changing policy with allowing harmful content but reducing its reach. He is able to do that due to this law.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Who gets to decide what is "harmful" content? I don't see that term anywhere in the US Constitution.
    - _8j50 4y ago
      This is civil law, it is defined in existing laws. If I can sue the content originator on their own then that has already been decided as harmful by the law. The constitution does not contain all laws.
      - porkbeer 4y ago
        How does the law decide words are harmful...
    - WeylandYutani 4y ago
      Advertising networks.
  - Nasrudith 4y ago
Bystander22 4y ago
There were some interesting observations on r/law, particularly this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/10h9vju/supreme_court_allows_reddit_mods_to_anonymously/j5am1km/ https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/10h9vju/supreme_court_... From there: >The issue has been muddied by sites like reddit who have been keen to play up outlandish possibilities of individual users or volunteer moderators becoming liable, which has never been a likely outcome of this case. The bigger and more realistic threat to a site like reddit is the possibility that actions taken by tools like automoderators, slur filters, or recommendation algorithms (e.g., sorting by "hot") might become legally analogous to editorial decisions. >Because those tools are sometimes set up by moderators and influenced by user actions (e.g. voting/reporting), there are sort of fringe or edge-case scenarios where the lines could potential blur between algorithmic policies and user/moderator actions. But we as users don't really need to worry too much about every conceivable edge-case legal theory, because a site like reddit would presumably be incentivized to remove or disable any tools that could create such a liability, to protect Reddit's own self-interest. >The algorithms that keep people clicking/viewing/refreshing the site are critical to the business interests of sites like Reddit and Youtube. It's really important for reddit's bottom line to have broad latitude to gamify user engagement by showing more of what will keep people on reddit longer and more-frequently. That's a less flattering PR angle than playing up the possibility that reddit users or mods could get in legal trouble. >It's not so much that there is no possible way that any ramification of this case could ever put a user or a mod of a site like reddit in any jeopardy in any conceivable scenario...It's more like, sites like Reddit have a lot to lose if their algorithmic recommendations should become legally analogous to editorial decisions.
- jedberg 4y ago
  You know how the lawyers get upset when us engineers practice airchair lawyering? This is like the reverse of that. Hot is not a recommendation algorithm -- everyone has the same hot list. It's literally just a sort of votes. In fact, almost nothing reddit does is custom to the user. It's all based on votes and other user actions. The only thing custom is the recommended sort, which anyone can turn off, by choosing the other sorts. Saying that reddit is algorithmic would be akin to saying that voting for President is an "algorithm" because it adds up user votes and is biased because the voters are biased.
Sunspark 4y ago
There are some great Reddit mods, but there are also some truly awful ones and the corporation does not have a proper arbitration process for managing things. Example fictional scenario, but entirely plausible as variations of this do play out, on a computing sub you could write "I like Windows" and the Apple Mac-loving Reddit mod could immediately ban you. No rules were broken, you just expressed a contrary opinion to theirs and that is it. So if you wish to continue participating in that sub, you would need to generate and use an alt account. Reddit threatens that having more than 1 account is against policy. Ignore this. You are the product on a free platform that generates corporate revenue through ads and selling digital awards, etc. If you do not engage with the platform by putting up posts and writing comments, there is less incentive for others to come visit as well, and ad impressions will diminish, revenue will diminish, etc. They will not actively seek out preventing access to the site if you are not breaking any laws or upsetting users. Do not get invested in accounts, were you to die tomorrow, nobody at all would remember you or care about anything you wrote there. It is negligent on the part of Reddit to not have a proper arbitration process to grieve improper content moderation on the part of mods. So yes, Reddit absolutely does take an active and direct hand in promoting the visibility of anything on the platform and should not be exempt from section 230. I am active in a sub that every day sees a lot of posts that I find interesting deleted by the mods. They are just curating. Sometimes things are deleted for the dumbest of reasons. Corporate interests come into play too. I remember the other month when Kanye said that Kim Kardashian and CP3 got together while both were married, the NBA Reddit mods for over 24 hours were ACTIVELY deleting every single post mentioning or linking to that. It was certainly basketball news, it was certainly salacious. Why was this happening? Good question! Was the suppression due to receiving an order from the NBA? Was it under orders from Reddit Corporate? Was it just simply a group of Reddit mods working overnight in a coffee shop deleting posts? It was far too targeted and for too long a time period to not be an active attempt at speech suppression until it was already out on too many other news sites, at which time an "approved" site like TMZ would be allowed through where they could presumably get ad-click impressions from diminished traffic to their story about it. They should tell the Supreme Court who gave the orders to suppress the Kanye story on a sub with 6 million+ subscribed accounts. You see this news-story preferences on other subs too, where some sites seemingly often have their links given preferential treatment, and others do not get to come through. Why? Is there a kickback? I don't know, but stories coming through are worth money as traffic is directed. I love old Reddit, but I despise how it was set up to have little anonymous dictators for life seemingly entrenched forever in their little fiefdoms. No elections, no votes, no recourse other than having more than 1 account. If Reddit is serious about wanting exemption from section 230, then if they want to be a social commons with community moderation they need to implement an arbitration process OR allow users to hold elections on which mods they want to represent them for fixed terms. Dictators-for-life from anonymous mods (who also have alt accounts and are probably Reddit employees on the largest subs) is not it. The anonymous mods giving Supreme Court testimony should state whether or not they are now, or have ever been an employee of Reddit or its investors or associated companies.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
the_arcadian 4y ago
While I generally agree that when someone does something violent, you blame them rather than the words on the page or the screen that they read, Reddit is an awful example here since its TOS is so perverse that it protects the most extreme and dishonest views on one side and then stifles any discussion and debate on the other. So for example, if I posted "100 black Americans are killed every day by white Americans", which is obviously both misleading and inaccurate, you would be risking your account by engaging in any kind of discussion or debate, or even arguing that you should be allowed to discuss and debate that. That's because you would be violating multiple rules - first, a rule that protects specific races from criticism, second, a rule that disallows even accurate breakdowns of crime by race, and third, a rule that prevents you from discussing and debating aspects of the TOS itself. Thus, by the rules of Reddit, my statement would stand completely unchallenged. Now realistically I don't think my statement alone would result in a rash of payback crimes, but over time you are giving people a skewed version of the world in which violence can be justified. And sure, one could argue that they're not legally responsible for what people do and that any attempt to hold them responsible is guilt by association, but OTOH I don't think any social media company wants that kind of reputation and press.
farmaway 4y ago
This is your reminder that past Reddit powermods and hired staff allegedly include Ghislane Maxwell [0] (who Ellen Pao knew and socialized with in Pao's time as Reddit CEO [1]), alleged rape and kidnapping accomplice Aimee Challenor [2] (criticism of whose hiring Reddit censored for days before relenting), and convicted domestic abuser creeps like u/bardfinn who abuse their moderator powers and allegedly flood competing subreddits with CSAM material [3]. These people do not deserve anonymity, nor an assumption of good faith. [0] https://www.the-sun.com/news/4460492/ghislaine-maxwell-reddit-account-arrest/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/4460492/ghislaine-maxwell-reddi... [1] https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/ex-reddit-ceo-ellen-pao-knew-ghislaine-maxwell-allegations/ https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/ex-reddit-ceo-ellen-pao-knew-g... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Challenor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Challenor [3] https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/theres-another-abusive-male-at-reddit https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/theres-another-abusive-...
- tadfisher 4y ago
  The GM link is tenuous at best, and has never been proven.
  - farmaway 4y ago
    There's a lot more evidence than covered in the linked article. I find it absolutely convincing. Here's a recap of most of it: https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/hnfx0r/not_confirmed_but_research_suggests_that/ https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/hnfx0r/not_conf...
- realworldperson 4y ago
  [dead]
- threeseed 4y ago
  No evidence that Ghislane Maxwell was a Reddit employee or moderator of any subreddits. No evidence that /u/bardfinn was posting CSAM. You may want to be careful because baseless accusations like this is libellous.
squokko 4y ago
This is interesting because it provides a very clear geopolitical incentive for actors to acquire control of Reddit moderatorships - an anonymous and untraceable way to influence a Supreme Court decision.
- CamelCaseName 4y ago
  Reddit isn't required to include every moderator's comments in their brief...
malwarebytess 4y ago
> if Section 230 is weakened by the court. Unlike other companies that hire content moderators, the content that Reddit displays is “primarily driven by humans—not by centralized algorithms.” Not true. Reddit mods enforce reddit rules, primarily. These rules have grown increasingly onerous over time. There is no more restrictive ruleset on reddit than those imposed by reddit inc. itself. This includes moderation by automoderation scripts written and enabled by volunteer moderators, at the behest(and their own) of reddit. Indeed, if reddit moderators do not enforce the rules of reddit then they will lose their positions as moderators and likely be banned as well.
layer8 4y ago
"The issue of recommendations arises in this case because the complaint alleges the defendants were recommending ISIS terrorist recruiting videos, which under certain circumstances could give rise to liability under the Anti-Terrorist Act," It seems to me there is an issue with the notion of “recommendation” here. There needs to be a difference between an intent to promote specific content, vs. a content-agnostic algorithm that just lists what “other users who liked what you liked also liked”. If (say) some Reddit moderators promote terrorist content, they should certainly be liable (or the editorial rules that require them to do so, if any). But when Reddit or YouTube shows you stuff based purely on statistical correlations of what you and other users viewed/liked in the past, then that mechanism in itself shouldn’t be an issue.
- tjr225 4y ago
  [dead]
- zwkrt 4y ago
  This doesn’t make any sense at all to me. If the video itself is a problem, it shouldn’t matter if it was recommended by a human with human intents or by an algorithm designed with capitalistic intent. It would be hard to convince me that the intent of the system that recommended the video should be heavily considered. At least in the US we have a highly consequentialist legal system.
  - layer8 4y ago
    IMO the question of whether some content should be allowed to be available at all is orthogonal to the question of liability for “recommending”. I was only addressing the latter.
sytelus 4y ago
I highly doubt if this specific court will make decisions based on what’s good for users or society. They are dead set on philosophy that if it is really that important for users or society than lawmakers should be enacting laws as opposed to Supreme Court sneaking in the protections. So, these people are pursuing wrong line of argument and likely fail. They should instead be pursuing rigorous argument that original intent of Section 230 was to provide the protection they are asking for.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BuckyBeaver 4y ago
Ironic that Reddit moderators, some of the biggest jagoffs on the Web, might end up helping to protect online freedom.
- BuckyBeaver 4y ago
  Uh-oh! One of them down-modded my statement of fact.
rootsudo 4y ago
So, reddit supports reddit mods, that offer free, uncompensated labor for subreddit communities. And no one questions that, or how subreddits can skew opinion or possible conflict of interest with some mods directly referring or supporting paid content while masquarading as if they aren't related to the product. Or, mods that dictate art isn't art, or that an artist didn't create something. As much as I do enjoy how the Internet flourished because of 230, I don't enjoy how there is no transparency in someone who can shape content of an online community, especially forwarding their own opinions/thoughts or have their own agenda. I don't see how the above issue of Reddit mods conflict of interests is not a 230 issue.
kjellsbells 4y ago
I feel that if you are going to brief the Supreme Court, you ought to come out of the shadows. But ok, let's let that pass. Perhaps the more intriguing issue with Reddit mods is that the really far reaching subreddits are controlled by so few people, and that moderation control is essentially for sale. See this old thread from HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23173018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23173018 It seems to me then that Reddit would strongly prefer not to pierce the veil of anonymity behind moderation because it will lead to some very uncomfortable questions for a business that has a perennial hope of IPO-ing in 2023.

230 points by taubek 4y ago

photochemsyn 4y ago

[flagged]

orra 4y ago
> noting that sped-up clinical trials for vaccines might be missing some issues related to vaccine efficacy and side effects, there's a problem. Clinical trials weren't sped up: there's your problem.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  Not to go to far off topic, but: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-319 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-319 > "Operation Warp Speed was a federal effort that supported multiple COVID-19 vaccine candidates to speed up development. We analyzed the program's vaccine candidates and found that their development followed traditional practices, with some adaptations. For example, some clinical trial phases overlapped with each other and with animal studies to accelerate development." Notice this probably played a role in the fact that the clinical trials didn't reveal that the vaccines didn't have much effect in preventing transmission (although severity of symptoms was clearly reduced). This discussion would have led to a perma-ban on the main Covid subreddits, I believe.
  - orra 4y ago
    > For example, some clinical trial phases overlapped with each other and with animal studies to accelerate development. Right, but GP was misrepresenting this. Having phases 1 and 2 overlap when phase 1 is clearly going well was at worst a risk to the phase 2 participants. It wasn't skimping on the length of phase 2 or 3, so there was never an increased risk of dangerous vaccines for the public. > Notice this probably played a role in the fact that the clinical trials didn't reveal that the vaccines didn't have much effect in preventing transmission (although severity of symptoms was clearly reduced). I don't think measuring reduction in transmission is a primary concern of vaccine trials? It also seems quite hard to do, without a significant proportion of the population being vaccinated.
    - edgyquant 4y ago
      >Having phases 1 and 2 overlap when phase 1 is clearly going well was at worst a risk to the phase 2 participants. It wasn't skimping on the length of phase 2 or 3, so there was never an increased risk of dangerous vaccines for the public. Irrelevant "actually"ing after being objectively wrong. Don't cherry pick to shutdown a conversation: and if you do don't be wrong in your attack.
      - orra 4y ago
        > and if you do don't be wrong in your attack. OP was clearly said the trials were sped up and that compromised safety. That's nonsense.
        edgyquant 4y ago
        That trials were sped up is not nonsense as that is exactly what happened. You disagree it compromised safety but that doesn’t change you were wrong as the other poster pointed out to you. It went against industry norms to get a vaccine out as soon as possible: that an overlap of trials is considered equally safe by some is irrelevant to that point. Regardless, you did not argue against the posters main point but instead chose to push back against what you thought would be an easy win and you did so with a factually incorrect rebuttal.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      Clinical trials are phased for very good reasons, AFAIK: phase 1 is for safety phase 2 is for efficacy phase 3 is for dosage They're not the same. Shortening Phase 1 is automatically a compromise with safety.
      - swimfar 4y ago
        Were the duration of the phases shortened? The quote makes it sound like the duration was kept the same, just that the following phase started before the end of the previous phase.
- edgyquant 4y ago
  stop cherry picking, the crust of that persons comment is about censorship
  - orra 4y ago
    We're talking about private (not government) censorship of inaccurate information.
    - edgyquant 4y ago
      Which you did not address
fzeroracer 4y ago
> A far better option is to rely entirely on a transparent algorithmic model, in which automated tools like lists of trigger keywords and contextual analysis that cause posts to be flagged for further review are clearly visible to the user audience. This is the worst idea I've read on HN and shows you've never actually dealt with users at scale. The moment your algorithm is visible, users will know how to beat it. Your list of 'trigger keywords' becomes a weapon both to harass normal users (by potentially tricking them into writing the trigger weapons) as well as by trolls because they know exactly how to modify the word to get around the filter. Social media is no different from a game, and when people figure out how a game works, they learn how to break it.

LinuxBender 4y ago

RFC 2119 agrees [1] as does US law [2] with exception of Illinois apparently. Seems to be ill defined and not preferred in the UK, sometimes deemed inappropriate [3]. Perhaps the UK will interpret as per RFC-6919 [4] instead. 1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification. [1] - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119 [2] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/shall https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/shall [3] - https://www.law-office.co.uk/art_shall-1.htm https://www.law-office.co.uk/art_shall-1.htm [4] - https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919

montron 4y ago

[flagged]

xbar 4y ago

I fear a ruling where the interpretation of Section 230 puts dang at risk of liability for all of his necessary and appropriate historic moderation.

prettyStandard 4y ago
I'm pretty new here. Can you elaborate? Edit: On the "necessary and appropriate historic moderation" part.
- Aaron2222 4y ago
  dang is the moderator here.
- DoneWithAllThat 4y ago
  The claim by some is that 230 protections shouldn’t apply if the site at all influences what is shown to other users - essentially, moderation. There’s all sorts of made up distinctions between publisher and web site (most of it disingenuous) but it generally boils down to various political factions upset that the “wrong” sort of content isn’t moderated away, or the “right” sort of content is. Which is right or wrong depends on how you lean politically.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > if the site at all influences what is shown to other users - essentially, moderation Which is bizarre, given the legislative history of Section 230, whose entire point was to protect and encourage private censorship by sites and users.
    - hgsgm 4y ago
      What parent meant to mean is that "the claim by some is that section 230 is bad/unconstitutional and should be removed". > A key protection shielding social media companies from liability for hosting third-party content—Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—is set to face its first US Supreme Court challenge.

theknocker 4y ago

[dead]

blindriver 4y ago

A more important point about Reddit specifically is that when Reddit finally goes IPO, all the mods get ZERO. The investors and the engineers and all the workers at Reddit will become rich, but the people who do the most important work, as outlined by the brief, are the anonymous moderators that create the culture of every subreddit. They get NOTHING. I find it amazing that this hasn't been brought up by the moderators themselves, and they're okay getting all the outcome and profits from their hard work literally picked away by Reddit. They don't even share in the profits of the advertising revenue from their subreddits! It's really incredible to me.

cactusplant7374 4y ago
They also get to make arbitrary decisions with no accountability. Essentially, the site is their personal fiefdom. Why would they waste their time unless they are benefiting in some way?
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  Probably the same reason people waste their time playing video games or reading science fiction. Scoundrels!!
  - cactusplant7374 4y ago
    In those cases you aren’t exercising control over someone else’s creative expression.
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      You’re ascribing a negative motive by establishing one could exist. Surely there are petty tyrants on Reddit. But the much simpler, most generous, and most likely explanation is they enjoy a hobby and enjoy fostering a healthy community around their hobby, and that this itself is a hobby of theirs. The word moderator wasn’t invented for social media, and the role is crucial in any healthy intellectual community. Because your creative expression may very well be disruptive to everyone else’s, and while you’re free to be creative in your expressions in general, others are free to exclude you from their community. The moderator gets the unpleasant job of being the executor of that will. I think the most important thing is most moderators I know hate the function of moderator. But the community is important enough they do it anyways. So, I guess I take it back. It’s more like producing a video game or editing science fiction. It’s work we do to be sure everyone can enjoy a hobby we love.

lucb1e 4y ago

I'm apparently out of the loop enough to understand all the words in the article but still have no idea what it's talking about. From context, I'm getting that it's something to do with volunteering and needing anonymity and immunity for when you then accidentally allow terrorists recruit followers? And there already exists law number 230 for this but the lawsuit tries to get it declared invalid? Can someone share maybe a short comment on what actually is going on here?

i_hate_pigeons 4y ago
here https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/10h2fz7/reddits_defense_of_section_230_to_the_supreme/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/10h2fz7/reddits_def...
jcranmer 4y ago
Ostensibly, the issue presented is this: > Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limits the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information. The background is that the families of a victim of a terrorist attack are suing Google for hosting an ISIS recruitment video on Youtube, for which Google has clear and undisputed immunity because of §230, and the plaintiffs are trying to find any argument they can stand on to make the suit stick (they've lost at all lower levels of the court). What I quoted above was the explicit question presented to SCOTUS, but from reading some of the actual briefs, there's almost no discussion of this actual question, with everyone instead wanting to discuss §230 as a whole and not its narrow application to recommendation content. Of the briefs I did skim, I liked the US solicitor general's position the best: recommendations are not protected by §230, but it's not enough to say that recommendation engine produced objectionable content, since the content itself is protected. Essentially, the recommendation would have to be in some way unreasonable, and the burden of that unreasonability is presumably on the plaintiff's part, and these plaintiffs are clearly unable or unwilling to properly make those allegations.

breck 4y ago

[flagged]

noirbot 4y ago
I was under the impression we often allowed anonymous testimony in courts for criminal trials, often to protect the identity of the witness and avoid the opportunity for them to be coerced or intimidated. I imagine often the situation is that your identity is verified, but just not entered into the public record? If anything, the point of it is because "we should not listen to cowards" is the justification for the worst kind of heckler's veto. It's the exact reason it was hard to get testimony against organized crime. If there's a good chance you'll be physically attacked, kidnapped, or financially ruined for trying to bring justice, you're simply encouraging more violence and threats in order to protect those already in power.
- breck 4y ago
  > I was under the impression we often allowed anonymous testimony in courts for criminal trials We specifically do not. The 6th Amendment: "...to be confronted with the witnesses against him" https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness
  - noirbot 4y ago
    Sure, and plenty of constitutional rights have exceptions with balancing tests. You can't say literally anything under the first amendment, you can't own literally anything that could be used as "arms" under the second, the definition of "due process" is regularly in question when it comes to the fifth amendment and has been a basis of plenty of expansive rulings outside of what you may think is a reasonable part of the amendment. I was perhaps over-stating when I said "often", but it's not patently absurd that there could be an accepted exception in this case.
- ameister14 4y ago
  I don't think it's 'often' and it's only in cases where there is a real and credible threat of harm to the witness. While that might make it harder to go after organized crime, the US believes it is important that, when you are accused of doing something, you get to confront your accuser. There's a really interesting law review article about this from 2020 which gets into the idea that, through misconduct, a defendant can waive their right to confront the witness at trial. Here's a link: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol39/iss4/3/ https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol39/iss4/3/

ecf 4y ago

> Unlike other companies that hire content moderators, the content that Reddit displays is “primarily driven by humans—not by centralized algorithms.” Reddit’s entire business model is Astroturfing-as-a-service, so I don’t believe this for a second.

throwayyy479087 4y ago
Ding ding ding. Being forced to reveal this information is why they'll never IPO.

willnonya 4y ago

While I support upholding section 230 I find irony in reddit proclaiming their support for users and everyday citizens. The majority of the site is overrun by zealots and trolls who relentlessly punish any non-conformance woth their chosen orthodoxy. Their moderation rarely maintains communities but rather restricts discussion, dissent and freedom of expression. This is like the Stazi proclaiming support for privacy laws.

paulpauper 4y ago
This was way worse during Covid , I know, even though before Covid it was already very bad. People were banned just for asking questions, merely for dissenting from the narrative, which was constantly changing, like about masks.
- shagie 4y ago
  The issue that moderators face is the "what is the relative worth of this topic in this subreddit compared to the additional (personal) cost of moderating it?" For many hot topic items no matter how innocuous or relevant to the subreddit, unless there is a large and active moderator team that can handle the fallout and apply appropriate anti-flame measures, the course that is easiest to take is "just delete it as soon as it starts." The moderation tools are blunt. Remove and approve. Shadow bans aren't things that can be done easily by mods (possible, but takes a fair bit of manual curation and getting into the automod setup). Delayed visibility can't be done (I'd love to have a "any reply to a comment that has a significant number of votes in that post is delayed by 15 minutes"). If there's a post that is "this will take me 1 minute to delete now" or "this will take me 1 hour to clean up later" - that 1 minute to delete now will likely win every time. Note that the alternative isn't "but you can just leave it up and users will behave" - it is "this sub will become unmoderated, full of spam, and eventually closed down." If the mod is at all interested in the topic, that's not a desirable state.
llanowarelves 4y ago
A while back, somebody made a moderator graph, that showed what dozens and dozens of subreddits individual moderators moderated. You could see their "web". It not only confirmed the leanings and behavior but undeniably so. It is why "redditor" exists as an insulting term, but fb/twitter/etc don't have one. Not necessarily just the users, but the mods too.

DannyBee 4y ago

FWIW - The supreme court generally will allow just about any amicus brief. So this is not particularly special in that respect.

paulpauper 4y ago

The notion of Reddit mods being selfless unpaid volunteers is misleading. They wield considerable power, and it's a desired position. Also, mods have been known to engage in payola and other deception for personal gain/profit. And too many arbitrary rules, too many shadow bans/deletions, etc.

notatoad 4y ago
it's crazy to me that reddit doesn't have staff doing the moderation job for the bigger subreddits. most of the content on the front page is from 5-10 subreddits which are all moderated by the same super-moderators, who effectively set the policy for what content is allowed and not allowed. and they do it with complete autonomy and independence. either that, or the few anonymous people who run reddit actually are reddit staff, and reddit prefers to keep the appearance of subreddits being "community-run" because unpopular mod actions can be swept away by retiring a moderator's profile.
- jeoqn 4y ago
  They don’t have to pay anybody… there’s no shortage of people who are more than happy to wield the power of being a mod and share the political and corporate values of the Reddit staff. Not to mention Reddit doesn’t have as many legal responsibilities over them if they don’t pay them I guess.
- water-your-self 4y ago
  They generally prefer to retire whole subreddits
enslavedrobot 4y ago
Not to mention the obvious political bias in many subs that state they are neutral and objective.
- robswc 4y ago
  That is one of my biggest issues with Reddit. One big gaslighting operation. Even if you agree with 9/10 opinions, If you disagree with one, you are made out to be an “other” and an adversary. Just look at how dis-functional it can be, even when everyone is on board with the same basic principals (r/antiwork)

honkler 4y ago

[flagged]

codingdave 4y ago

To be clear, from the article: "Reddit received special permission from the Supreme Court to include anonymous comments from Reddit mods in its brief." This is not saying the court decided anything - it is just saying it is allowing commentary from mods to be submitted to the court, without knowing their identity.

dehrmann 4y ago
That matches what the title says
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  You don't need permission to submit an amicus brief any more: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/12/court-drops-consent-requirement-for-filing-of-amicus-briefs-makes-other-tweaks-to-rules/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/12/court-drops-consent-requi...
  - nl 4y ago
    That's true, but they did need special permission to leep the identities of the moderators anonymous: This, Reddit’s spokesperson notes, is “a significant departure from normal Supreme Court procedure.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit defending online privacy, championed the court’s decision to allow moderators to contribute comments anonymously. “We’re happy the Supreme Court recognized the First Amendment rights of Reddit moderators to speak to the court about their concerns,” EFF’s senior staff attorney, Sophia Cope, told Ars. “It is quite understandable why those individuals may be hesitant to identify themselves should they be subject to liability in the future for moderating others’ speech on Reddit.” I'd note both the EFF and Reddit said this was unusual.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      Perhaps, but then again maybe it's just really good PR.
    - killjoywashere 4y ago

wolverine876 4y ago

I'm concerned about the US Supreme Court's ability to handle a subtle, technical issue tied to new media. They need to take into account all the stakeholders, rights, law, and the dynamics of social media, and come up with an innovative solution that meets all needs fairly and clearly. I wonder how many there even use social media, and I'm especially concerned that the Court is now oriented toward, and many members selected for, partisanship. They are there to find partisan advantage in rulings, not to be legal geniuses with deep commitment and knowledge of justice and fairness, with deep judicial temperment - there are not there as Solomons. That puts them at a loss for complex issues, expecially unfamiliar ones, though I'm sure they will find a partisan angle. Whatever your politics: The reactionary conservative movement, with its campaign to politicize everything (now working on the FBI and Department of Justice, for example), has permanently degraded the country; we won't have these institutions back for generations. People don't want to face the loss, but it's already happened and continues to worsen before our eyes. EDIT: People who support politicization (or corruption or disinformation or other damaging behavior) argue to normalize it - it's always that way, everyone does it, it's unavoidable, it's 'human nature'. I have warmongers now telling me that it's inevitable human nature. But that's not the case; we can have meaningfully less or more partisanship (especially in courts), corruption, disinformation, and warfare. I can see it with my own eyes now; I was here before 2016, and I know about other places and times and people. It's a bunch of nonsense and everybody knows it. We control our fate, through knowledge and reason, through a collective commitment to good. Our predecessors did it, without the institutions and mechanisms and knowledge they bequeathed to us. With our inheritance couldn't have it easier; what are we bequeathing to the next generation? Despair? Corruption and war? What a shame that would be, with all we were given.

tptacek 4y ago
Our court system routinely handles far more technical issues than online publishing. Like every modern country, we regulate everything from water reclamation to aviation.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  I'm talking about SCOTUS. Can you give examples there? Trial (district) and circuit appealate courts are different - though they also have been politicized to degrees. Regulation is handled in the executive branch. Just because we regulate it, or it's tried in court, doesn't mean it's done well. That's the issue.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

srj 4y ago

If you haven't already I recommend reading the text of section 230. It's very short and takes only a minute or two: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

_8j50 4y ago
I don't think it should be repealed but its protections should only apply to users and content providers acting in good faith and best effort to proactively prevent harmful content. Revenge porn for a moderate example: not verifying the provenance if the content and validity of the submitter by the porn site or users who knowningly upvote or positively comment should not be protected. There needs to be an incentive beyond the goodwill of site owners and users. Look at twitter with elon changing policy with allowing harmful content but reducing its reach. He is able to do that due to this law.
- nradov 4y ago
  Who gets to decide what is "harmful" content? I don't see that term anywhere in the US Constitution.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    This is civil law, it is defined in existing laws. If I can sue the content originator on their own then that has already been decided as harmful by the law. The constitution does not contain all laws.
    - porkbeer 4y ago
      How does the law decide words are harmful...
  - WeylandYutani 4y ago
    Advertising networks.
- Nasrudith 4y ago

Bystander22 4y ago

There were some interesting observations on r/law, particularly this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/10h9vju/supreme_court_allows_reddit_mods_to_anonymously/j5am1km/ https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/10h9vju/supreme_court_... From there: >The issue has been muddied by sites like reddit who have been keen to play up outlandish possibilities of individual users or volunteer moderators becoming liable, which has never been a likely outcome of this case. The bigger and more realistic threat to a site like reddit is the possibility that actions taken by tools like automoderators, slur filters, or recommendation algorithms (e.g., sorting by "hot") might become legally analogous to editorial decisions. >Because those tools are sometimes set up by moderators and influenced by user actions (e.g. voting/reporting), there are sort of fringe or edge-case scenarios where the lines could potential blur between algorithmic policies and user/moderator actions. But we as users don't really need to worry too much about every conceivable edge-case legal theory, because a site like reddit would presumably be incentivized to remove or disable any tools that could create such a liability, to protect Reddit's own self-interest. >The algorithms that keep people clicking/viewing/refreshing the site are critical to the business interests of sites like Reddit and Youtube. It's really important for reddit's bottom line to have broad latitude to gamify user engagement by showing more of what will keep people on reddit longer and more-frequently. That's a less flattering PR angle than playing up the possibility that reddit users or mods could get in legal trouble. >It's not so much that there is no possible way that any ramification of this case could ever put a user or a mod of a site like reddit in any jeopardy in any conceivable scenario...It's more like, sites like Reddit have a lot to lose if their algorithmic recommendations should become legally analogous to editorial decisions.

jedberg 4y ago
You know how the lawyers get upset when us engineers practice airchair lawyering? This is like the reverse of that. Hot is not a recommendation algorithm -- everyone has the same hot list. It's literally just a sort of votes. In fact, almost nothing reddit does is custom to the user. It's all based on votes and other user actions. The only thing custom is the recommended sort, which anyone can turn off, by choosing the other sorts. Saying that reddit is algorithmic would be akin to saying that voting for President is an "algorithm" because it adds up user votes and is biased because the voters are biased.

Sunspark 4y ago

There are some great Reddit mods, but there are also some truly awful ones and the corporation does not have a proper arbitration process for managing things. Example fictional scenario, but entirely plausible as variations of this do play out, on a computing sub you could write "I like Windows" and the Apple Mac-loving Reddit mod could immediately ban you. No rules were broken, you just expressed a contrary opinion to theirs and that is it. So if you wish to continue participating in that sub, you would need to generate and use an alt account. Reddit threatens that having more than 1 account is against policy. Ignore this. You are the product on a free platform that generates corporate revenue through ads and selling digital awards, etc. If you do not engage with the platform by putting up posts and writing comments, there is less incentive for others to come visit as well, and ad impressions will diminish, revenue will diminish, etc. They will not actively seek out preventing access to the site if you are not breaking any laws or upsetting users. Do not get invested in accounts, were you to die tomorrow, nobody at all would remember you or care about anything you wrote there. It is negligent on the part of Reddit to not have a proper arbitration process to grieve improper content moderation on the part of mods. So yes, Reddit absolutely does take an active and direct hand in promoting the visibility of anything on the platform and should not be exempt from section 230. I am active in a sub that every day sees a lot of posts that I find interesting deleted by the mods. They are just curating. Sometimes things are deleted for the dumbest of reasons. Corporate interests come into play too. I remember the other month when Kanye said that Kim Kardashian and CP3 got together while both were married, the NBA Reddit mods for over 24 hours were ACTIVELY deleting every single post mentioning or linking to that. It was certainly basketball news, it was certainly salacious. Why was this happening? Good question! Was the suppression due to receiving an order from the NBA? Was it under orders from Reddit Corporate? Was it just simply a group of Reddit mods working overnight in a coffee shop deleting posts? It was far too targeted and for too long a time period to not be an active attempt at speech suppression until it was already out on too many other news sites, at which time an "approved" site like TMZ would be allowed through where they could presumably get ad-click impressions from diminished traffic to their story about it. They should tell the Supreme Court who gave the orders to suppress the Kanye story on a sub with 6 million+ subscribed accounts. You see this news-story preferences on other subs too, where some sites seemingly often have their links given preferential treatment, and others do not get to come through. Why? Is there a kickback? I don't know, but stories coming through are worth money as traffic is directed. I love old Reddit, but I despise how it was set up to have little anonymous dictators for life seemingly entrenched forever in their little fiefdoms. No elections, no votes, no recourse other than having more than 1 account. If Reddit is serious about wanting exemption from section 230, then if they want to be a social commons with community moderation they need to implement an arbitration process OR allow users to hold elections on which mods they want to represent them for fixed terms. Dictators-for-life from anonymous mods (who also have alt accounts and are probably Reddit employees on the largest subs) is not it. The anonymous mods giving Supreme Court testimony should state whether or not they are now, or have ever been an employee of Reddit or its investors or associated companies.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

the_arcadian 4y ago

While I generally agree that when someone does something violent, you blame them rather than the words on the page or the screen that they read, Reddit is an awful example here since its TOS is so perverse that it protects the most extreme and dishonest views on one side and then stifles any discussion and debate on the other. So for example, if I posted "100 black Americans are killed every day by white Americans", which is obviously both misleading and inaccurate, you would be risking your account by engaging in any kind of discussion or debate, or even arguing that you should be allowed to discuss and debate that. That's because you would be violating multiple rules - first, a rule that protects specific races from criticism, second, a rule that disallows even accurate breakdowns of crime by race, and third, a rule that prevents you from discussing and debating aspects of the TOS itself. Thus, by the rules of Reddit, my statement would stand completely unchallenged. Now realistically I don't think my statement alone would result in a rash of payback crimes, but over time you are giving people a skewed version of the world in which violence can be justified. And sure, one could argue that they're not legally responsible for what people do and that any attempt to hold them responsible is guilt by association, but OTOH I don't think any social media company wants that kind of reputation and press.

farmaway 4y ago

This is your reminder that past Reddit powermods and hired staff allegedly include Ghislane Maxwell [0] (who Ellen Pao knew and socialized with in Pao's time as Reddit CEO [1]), alleged rape and kidnapping accomplice Aimee Challenor [2] (criticism of whose hiring Reddit censored for days before relenting), and convicted domestic abuser creeps like u/bardfinn who abuse their moderator powers and allegedly flood competing subreddits with CSAM material [3]. These people do not deserve anonymity, nor an assumption of good faith. [0] https://www.the-sun.com/news/4460492/ghislaine-maxwell-reddit-account-arrest/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/4460492/ghislaine-maxwell-reddi... [1] https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/ex-reddit-ceo-ellen-pao-knew-ghislaine-maxwell-allegations/ https://nypost.com/2020/07/08/ex-reddit-ceo-ellen-pao-knew-g... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Challenor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Challenor [3] https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/theres-another-abusive-male-at-reddit https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/theres-another-abusive-...

tadfisher 4y ago
The GM link is tenuous at best, and has never been proven.
- farmaway 4y ago
  There's a lot more evidence than covered in the linked article. I find it absolutely convincing. Here's a recap of most of it: https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/hnfx0r/not_confirmed_but_research_suggests_that/ https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/hnfx0r/not_conf...
realworldperson 4y ago
[dead]
threeseed 4y ago
No evidence that Ghislane Maxwell was a Reddit employee or moderator of any subreddits. No evidence that /u/bardfinn was posting CSAM. You may want to be careful because baseless accusations like this is libellous.

squokko 4y ago

This is interesting because it provides a very clear geopolitical incentive for actors to acquire control of Reddit moderatorships - an anonymous and untraceable way to influence a Supreme Court decision.

CamelCaseName 4y ago
Reddit isn't required to include every moderator's comments in their brief...

malwarebytess 4y ago

> if Section 230 is weakened by the court. Unlike other companies that hire content moderators, the content that Reddit displays is “primarily driven by humans—not by centralized algorithms.” Not true. Reddit mods enforce reddit rules, primarily. These rules have grown increasingly onerous over time. There is no more restrictive ruleset on reddit than those imposed by reddit inc. itself. This includes moderation by automoderation scripts written and enabled by volunteer moderators, at the behest(and their own) of reddit. Indeed, if reddit moderators do not enforce the rules of reddit then they will lose their positions as moderators and likely be banned as well.

layer8 4y ago

"The issue of recommendations arises in this case because the complaint alleges the defendants were recommending ISIS terrorist recruiting videos, which under certain circumstances could give rise to liability under the Anti-Terrorist Act," It seems to me there is an issue with the notion of “recommendation” here. There needs to be a difference between an intent to promote specific content, vs. a content-agnostic algorithm that just lists what “other users who liked what you liked also liked”. If (say) some Reddit moderators promote terrorist content, they should certainly be liable (or the editorial rules that require them to do so, if any). But when Reddit or YouTube shows you stuff based purely on statistical correlations of what you and other users viewed/liked in the past, then that mechanism in itself shouldn’t be an issue.

tjr225 4y ago
[dead]
zwkrt 4y ago
This doesn’t make any sense at all to me. If the video itself is a problem, it shouldn’t matter if it was recommended by a human with human intents or by an algorithm designed with capitalistic intent. It would be hard to convince me that the intent of the system that recommended the video should be heavily considered. At least in the US we have a highly consequentialist legal system.
- layer8 4y ago
  IMO the question of whether some content should be allowed to be available at all is orthogonal to the question of liability for “recommending”. I was only addressing the latter.

sytelus 4y ago

I highly doubt if this specific court will make decisions based on what’s good for users or society. They are dead set on philosophy that if it is really that important for users or society than lawmakers should be enacting laws as opposed to Supreme Court sneaking in the protections. So, these people are pursuing wrong line of argument and likely fail. They should instead be pursuing rigorous argument that original intent of Section 230 was to provide the protection they are asking for.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

BuckyBeaver 4y ago

Ironic that Reddit moderators, some of the biggest jagoffs on the Web, might end up helping to protect online freedom.

BuckyBeaver 4y ago
Uh-oh! One of them down-modded my statement of fact.

rootsudo 4y ago

So, reddit supports reddit mods, that offer free, uncompensated labor for subreddit communities. And no one questions that, or how subreddits can skew opinion or possible conflict of interest with some mods directly referring or supporting paid content while masquarading as if they aren't related to the product. Or, mods that dictate art isn't art, or that an artist didn't create something. As much as I do enjoy how the Internet flourished because of 230, I don't enjoy how there is no transparency in someone who can shape content of an online community, especially forwarding their own opinions/thoughts or have their own agenda. I don't see how the above issue of Reddit mods conflict of interests is not a 230 issue.

kjellsbells 4y ago

I feel that if you are going to brief the Supreme Court, you ought to come out of the shadows. But ok, let's let that pass. Perhaps the more intriguing issue with Reddit mods is that the really far reaching subreddits are controlled by so few people, and that moderation control is essentially for sale. See this old thread from HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23173018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23173018 It seems to me then that Reddit would strongly prefer not to pierce the veil of anonymity behind moderation because it will lead to some very uncomfortable questions for a business that has a perennial hope of IPO-ing in 2023.