4 ms·

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/47/2

by 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I don't think it should be repealed but its protections should only apply to users and content providers acting in good faith and best effort to proactively prevent harmful content.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
  Then you think that Section 230 should be repealed. The whole goddamned point is to not have a chilling effect for moderation.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    If you are not putting in best effort to moderate harmful (not merely undesirable but someone is being harmed) content then by all means chill away. Key word is best effort with the resources you have. So a one guy operated forum has to restrict user registration to a volume that person can manage. Moderation is the way you avoid liability. Spam or dmca would be out of scope for example and a flag button is sufficient for reporting harmful content. The driver in a robbery-murder gets charged equally with murder because he was part of a criminal act knowingly. Merely facilitating content delivery is being the driver,so the moment you know a crime is being committed or someone harmed you have a choice to stop participating and report the offense or keep doing what you are doing and become a co-conspirator.
  - WeylandYutani 4y ago
    Capitalism enforces moderation even if American law does not. Reddit knows that advertisers don't want to be associated with racism or hate crimes.
    - _8j50 4y ago
      That's not true and misleading. Capitalism promotes removal of unprofitable content. If your audience is the general public moderation will fit that, if it is people who are into something undesriable and unpopular it will follow suit. A person can be harmed and that harm can be popular and profitable even for sites like reddit or HN even. The law protects the one innocent or wronged person first before the masses. For example, it may be popular and I will agree with saying "the only good nazi is a dead nazi" however in the eyes of the law, if Nazis felt actual threat and suffered trauma let them sue me in court and if HN did not take down my content after it was flagged (no obligation to proactively monitor) then YC gets sued also. There is a nice real place between utopia and dystopia.
- ilyt 4y ago
  "I upvoted wrong porn movie and I'm now in jail" is terrible dystopia you seem to want. All site owner should be required is to follow the law here like disclose the uploader's data to the authorities if what they did is deemed illegal > There needs to be an incentive beyond the goodwill of site owners and users. The incentive is users wanting to use your site because it is not filled with shit. Also "harmful content" is nowadays waaay to easily interpreted as "the thing I don't like".
  - _8j50 4y ago
    Prosecutors would have to prove you upvoted knowing it was "the wrong porn". > All site owner should be required is to follow the law here like disclose the uploader's data to the authorities if what they did is deemed illegal And take it down? With that stipulation it is even more than what I said because best effort moderation is not neccesarily reporting to the government. Just bans and removal are best effort right? Once the content is taken down, I don't think there should be a reporting requirement unless a criminal law was broken. > The incentive is users wanting to use your site because it is not filled with shit. Are you kidding? Users will flock specifically for shit and pay for it too. I won't even mention any of them I am sure you must know this. Filth is actually very profitable. Well meaning site operators and users should be protected but for everyone else there needs to be a moderation incentive. If I bully you on HN for example, what is the incentive to ban me other than the goodwill of moderators? What if they prefer to have as many users as possible even if they can't reasonably review every flagged post? My suggestion is to provise that incentive so that moderation happens not just when it is convenient for the site operator. Moderation is why you are not liable to begin with. > Also "harmful content" is nowadays waaay to easily interpreted as "the thing I don't like". Not really, there are clear enough legal definition. Of course there is criminal law but in addition to that, whatever in state or federal law that is already defined as action or speech for which you can become liable, now the site owner also gets liable in addition to the original poster if and only if the site owner refuses to do moderation. So if "the thing I don't like" is something I can sue you for, I would need to win a suit against the original poster first and then sue the site owner for refusing to have moderation capabilities or not reviewing flagged posts and taking them down.

by srj 4y ago

_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
Then you think that Section 230 should be repealed. The whole goddamned point is to not have a chilling effect for moderation.
- _8j50 4y ago
  If you are not putting in best effort to moderate harmful (not merely undesirable but someone is being harmed) content then by all means chill away. Key word is best effort with the resources you have. So a one guy operated forum has to restrict user registration to a volume that person can manage. Moderation is the way you avoid liability. Spam or dmca would be out of scope for example and a flag button is sufficient for reporting harmful content. The driver in a robbery-murder gets charged equally with murder because he was part of a criminal act knowingly. Merely facilitating content delivery is being the driver,so the moment you know a crime is being committed or someone harmed you have a choice to stop participating and report the offense or keep doing what you are doing and become a co-conspirator.
- WeylandYutani 4y ago
  Capitalism enforces moderation even if American law does not. Reddit knows that advertisers don't want to be associated with racism or hate crimes.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    That's not true and misleading. Capitalism promotes removal of unprofitable content. If your audience is the general public moderation will fit that, if it is people who are into something undesriable and unpopular it will follow suit. A person can be harmed and that harm can be popular and profitable even for sites like reddit or HN even. The law protects the one innocent or wronged person first before the masses. For example, it may be popular and I will agree with saying "the only good nazi is a dead nazi" however in the eyes of the law, if Nazis felt actual threat and suffered trauma let them sue me in court and if HN did not take down my content after it was flagged (no obligation to proactively monitor) then YC gets sued also. There is a nice real place between utopia and dystopia.
ilyt 4y ago
"I upvoted wrong porn movie and I'm now in jail" is terrible dystopia you seem to want. All site owner should be required is to follow the law here like disclose the uploader's data to the authorities if what they did is deemed illegal > There needs to be an incentive beyond the goodwill of site owners and users. The incentive is users wanting to use your site because it is not filled with shit. Also "harmful content" is nowadays waaay to easily interpreted as "the thing I don't like".
- _8j50 4y ago
  Prosecutors would have to prove you upvoted knowing it was "the wrong porn". > All site owner should be required is to follow the law here like disclose the uploader's data to the authorities if what they did is deemed illegal And take it down? With that stipulation it is even more than what I said because best effort moderation is not neccesarily reporting to the government. Just bans and removal are best effort right? Once the content is taken down, I don't think there should be a reporting requirement unless a criminal law was broken. > The incentive is users wanting to use your site because it is not filled with shit. Are you kidding? Users will flock specifically for shit and pay for it too. I won't even mention any of them I am sure you must know this. Filth is actually very profitable. Well meaning site operators and users should be protected but for everyone else there needs to be a moderation incentive. If I bully you on HN for example, what is the incentive to ban me other than the goodwill of moderators? What if they prefer to have as many users as possible even if they can't reasonably review every flagged post? My suggestion is to provise that incentive so that moderation happens not just when it is convenient for the site operator. Moderation is why you are not liable to begin with. > Also "harmful content" is nowadays waaay to easily interpreted as "the thing I don't like". Not really, there are clear enough legal definition. Of course there is criminal law but in addition to that, whatever in state or federal law that is already defined as action or speech for which you can become liable, now the site owner also gets liable in addition to the original poster if and only if the site owner refuses to do moderation. So if "the thing I don't like" is something I can sue you for, I would need to win a suit against the original poster first and then sue the site owner for refusing to have moderation capabilities or not reviewing flagged posts and taking them down.