4 ms·

I think that's a pretty sledgehammer-y view. Like, I make a website for pregnant women and someone comes and rants about American politics. What the fuck am I

I think that's a pretty sledgehammer-y view. Like, I make a website for pregnant women and someone comes and rants about American politics. What the fuck am I supposed to do if I can't delete their comments? Let my project dwindle to shit because I'm "editorializing" content by deleting this obvious off-topic discussion? Am I now responsible for the opinions of other people because, according to your logic, I now endorse them by not deleting their messages? You've basically reduced all forms of discourse by introducing liability into an open discussion. Someone gives incorrect advice that someone else takes on my forum. They kill their baby. Whops, time for me to go to fucking jail for someone else's opinion. I think you have a problem with platforms and monopolistic behavior that's designed to colonize your attention. The fact that searches on the internet are dominated by one private for-profit entity is a problem. The fact that the majority of internet traffic gets siloed into a few websites, which aggressively (and honestly sometimes borderline illegally and definitely morally reprehensibly) snuff out competition is a problem. The fact that registering a domain, setting up an internet connection, and trying to host a website, are all for profit, private driven workflows is a problem. The fact that all of the above can easily be taken away from you, due to a denial of service, which has nothing to do with the legality of the content you host or your opinions, is a problem. All of these are serious problems that require more than a band-aid, sledgehammer solution aimed at section 230.

Dalewyn 4y ago
>I make a website for pregnant women and someone comes and rants about American politics. What the fuck am I supposed to do if I can't delete their comments? Let my project dwindle to shit because I'm "editorializing" content by deleting this obvious off-topic discussion? Yes; do nothing and assume no liablity. If you don't want to assume any liability you don't involve yourself beyond providing a platform. Simple as that. >I now endorse them by not deleting their messages? You endorse nothing because you assume no liability by doing nothing (abiding by applicable laws notwithstanding). >Someone gives incorrect advice that someone else takes on my forum. They kill their baby. Whops, time for me to go to fucking jail for someone else's opinion. You are not liable for the "incorrect advice" if you did not involve yourself in its creation and publication, beyond providing a platform. >I think you have a problem with platforms and monopolistic behavior that's designed to colonize your attention. I have a problem with publishers pretending to be platforms and enjoying the benefits of being both a publisher and a platform while evading all liabilities thereof. >The fact that searches on the internet are dominated by one private for-profit entity is a problem. It is, but it is neither here nor there. >The fact that the majority of internet traffic gets siloed into a few websites, which aggressively (and honestly sometimes borderline illegally and definitely morally reprehensibly) snuff out competition is a problem. It is, and the removal of section 230 protections would serve to partially alleviate the problem. >The fact that registering a domain, setting up an internet connection, and trying to host a website, are all for profit, private driven workflows is a problem. Hosting a website /should/ be a private endeavour for the sake of ensuring free speech. Once upon a time, making your own website (and assuming all the liabilities that entailed) was how you voiced your thoughts on the internet instead of posts on Twitter and Reddit. >The fact that all of the above can easily be taken away from you, due to a denial of service, which has nothing to do with the legality of the content you host or your opinions, is a problem. That is a structural problem with how the internet is formed. Tangientially related it may be, it is not directly relevant to the question of free speech. >All of these are serious problems that require more than a band-aid, sledgehammer solution aimed at section 230. Removing section 230 would only address some of the problems the internet faces, but it would be a start.
- jterrys 4y ago
  >Yes; do nothing and assume no liablity. If you don't want to assume any liability you don't involve yourself beyond providing a platform. Simple as that. So your solution is to actually do nothing and let the project die? What an awful non-solution.
  - less_less 4y ago
    Worse than that: their "solution" is that all platforms should be 8chan.
- tzs 4y ago
  So if I run a chess forum and delete posts that are not about chess, and I delete 10 legal but off topic posts about baby care that give advice that will kill some babies, but I happen to miss one of those baby care posts and some babies die, I'm liable because I was actively deleting some legal posts? But if I don't delete posts (other than those I'm legally required to delete), so let all the baby care posts remain I'm free from liability? So the net result is that my chess forum (and all other forums run by entities that don't have the resources to review every post before allowing it to go public) becomes a topic-free general forum. And you think this is a good thing!?

Dalewyn 4y ago

>I make a website for pregnant women and someone comes and rants about American politics. What the fuck am I supposed to do if I can't delete their comments? Let my project dwindle to shit because I'm "editorializing" content by deleting this obvious off-topic discussion? Yes; do nothing and assume no liablity. If you don't want to assume any liability you don't involve yourself beyond providing a platform. Simple as that. >I now endorse them by not deleting their messages? You endorse nothing because you assume no liability by doing nothing (abiding by applicable laws notwithstanding). >Someone gives incorrect advice that someone else takes on my forum. They kill their baby. Whops, time for me to go to fucking jail for someone else's opinion. You are not liable for the "incorrect advice" if you did not involve yourself in its creation and publication, beyond providing a platform. >I think you have a problem with platforms and monopolistic behavior that's designed to colonize your attention. I have a problem with publishers pretending to be platforms and enjoying the benefits of being both a publisher and a platform while evading all liabilities thereof. >The fact that searches on the internet are dominated by one private for-profit entity is a problem. It is, but it is neither here nor there. >The fact that the majority of internet traffic gets siloed into a few websites, which aggressively (and honestly sometimes borderline illegally and definitely morally reprehensibly) snuff out competition is a problem. It is, and the removal of section 230 protections would serve to partially alleviate the problem. >The fact that registering a domain, setting up an internet connection, and trying to host a website, are all for profit, private driven workflows is a problem. Hosting a website /should/ be a private endeavour for the sake of ensuring free speech. Once upon a time, making your own website (and assuming all the liabilities that entailed) was how you voiced your thoughts on the internet instead of posts on Twitter and Reddit. >The fact that all of the above can easily be taken away from you, due to a denial of service, which has nothing to do with the legality of the content you host or your opinions, is a problem. That is a structural problem with how the internet is formed. Tangientially related it may be, it is not directly relevant to the question of free speech. >All of these are serious problems that require more than a band-aid, sledgehammer solution aimed at section 230. Removing section 230 would only address some of the problems the internet faces, but it would be a start.

jterrys 4y ago
>Yes; do nothing and assume no liablity. If you don't want to assume any liability you don't involve yourself beyond providing a platform. Simple as that. So your solution is to actually do nothing and let the project die? What an awful non-solution.
- less_less 4y ago
  Worse than that: their "solution" is that all platforms should be 8chan.
tzs 4y ago
So if I run a chess forum and delete posts that are not about chess, and I delete 10 legal but off topic posts about baby care that give advice that will kill some babies, but I happen to miss one of those baby care posts and some babies die, I'm liable because I was actively deleting some legal posts? But if I don't delete posts (other than those I'm legally required to delete), so let all the baby care posts remain I'm free from liability? So the net result is that my chess forum (and all other forums run by entities that don't have the resources to review every post before allowing it to go public) becomes a topic-free general forum. And you think this is a good thing!?