4 ms·

You precisely describe the nature of section 230. > I think a law designed to encourage very light moderation in no way applies to full-fledged algorithmic det

You precisely describe the nature of section 230. > I think a law designed to encourage very light moderation in no way applies to full-fledged algorithmic determination, and that distinction needs to be made and clarified. I think this is where the definition of "good faith" in section 230 comes into play. If the platforms are simply removing illegal content and protecting the users from content they don't want to see, that would be good faith in the sense it is putting the interests of the users first. Now, optimizing feeds to benefit advertisers, or trying to socially engineer democratic elections? That is not good faith. And yet, some of these actions are done at the request of politicians and government agencies - often with the implicit threat of regulation and anti-trust action. As much as we need to expect good faith moderation from social media platforms, we also a stronger protections for private entities being strong-armed by state actors.

qball 4y ago
>we also a stronger protections for private entities being strong-armed by state actors. It's important to note that this also needs (though I suspect that it already does) to apply to hosting providers and ISPs. (We need one for banks and payment processors, too, but one step at a time.) The whole "just make your own Internet" will ultimately be the death of free thought; in some respects, this has already happened. Cloudflare in particular makes a bundle on flat out illegal content; forcing them to moderate everything or just accept everyone's business (and ensuring ISPs can't blackhole routing requests) would likely be an improvement, and not one the enemy can as easily influence (as there's no viable "our payment processors said so" excuse). Of course, then the enemy will just amp up their efforts through the banks or the app stores, but one less avenue of attack they have is always better.
danShumway 4y ago
> You precisely describe the nature of section 230 In the original authors' own words (https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-and-former-rep-cox-urge-supreme-court-to-uphold-precedent-on-section-230 https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-a...): > Section 230 protects targeted recommendations to the same extent that it protects other forms of content presentation. [...] That interpretation enables Section 230 to fulfill Congress’s purpose of encouraging innovation in content presentation and moderation. The real-time transmission of user-generated content that Section 230 fosters has become a backbone of online activity, relied upon by innumerable Internet users and platforms alike. Section 230’s protection remains as essential today as it was when the provision was enacted. The original authors believe that algorithms are protected. The original authors of Section 230 also don't believe that Section 230 prohibits biased platforms or prohibits platforms from having an agenda. Ron Wyden's take on the "platforms are biased" argument (https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/16/18626779/ron-wyden-section-230-facebook-regulations-neutrality https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/16/18626779/ron-wyden-sect...): > Section 230 is not about neutrality. Period. Full stop. ---- That being said, should we have better protections for platforms being strong-armed by state actors? Yes, absolutely. The government has many levers it can pull to influence private speech, and those levers need careful safeguards and we need checks in place to prevent state actors from threatening platforms and using political power to bully them into making specific moderation decisions. But while that is an admirable goal, it has nothing to do with Section 230, a law that is itself a check on government power to punish companies over moderation decisions. If you're worried about private entities being influenced by state actors -- as you say "often with the implicit threat of regulation and anti-trust action" -- then giving the government more power to determine what is and isn't "good faith" moderation is heading in the wrong direction and would make the problem even worse. The solution to the government strong-arming platforms into removing content is not to give the government more power over moderation decisions.
edmundsauto 4y ago
Perhaps I missed it, but what is the evidence for socially engineering elections? Cambridge Analytica was actually a violation of FB. I have seen emails where they discussed removing content or accounts due to policy violations, but that doesn’t sound like what you mean. While the employee base is generally left leaning, there are plenty of studies showing that platforms actually favored conservative voices. Can you elaborate with details of what you meant?
- philipwhiuk 4y ago
  > Cambridge Analytica was actually a violation of FB. Of their terms of service, less so the actual law.
  - disgruntledphd2 4y ago
    Look, that stuff about the Big 5 and microtargeting just didn't work. How Cambridge analytical actually made money was sting operations on politicians featuring hookers and hotel rooms.

qball 4y ago

>we also a stronger protections for private entities being strong-armed by state actors. It's important to note that this also needs (though I suspect that it already does) to apply to hosting providers and ISPs. (We need one for banks and payment processors, too, but one step at a time.) The whole "just make your own Internet" will ultimately be the death of free thought; in some respects, this has already happened. Cloudflare in particular makes a bundle on flat out illegal content; forcing them to moderate everything or just accept everyone's business (and ensuring ISPs can't blackhole routing requests) would likely be an improvement, and not one the enemy can as easily influence (as there's no viable "our payment processors said so" excuse). Of course, then the enemy will just amp up their efforts through the banks or the app stores, but one less avenue of attack they have is always better.

danShumway 4y ago

> You precisely describe the nature of section 230 In the original authors' own words (https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-and-former-rep-cox-urge-supreme-court-to-uphold-precedent-on-section-230 https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-a...): > Section 230 protects targeted recommendations to the same extent that it protects other forms of content presentation. [...] That interpretation enables Section 230 to fulfill Congress’s purpose of encouraging innovation in content presentation and moderation. The real-time transmission of user-generated content that Section 230 fosters has become a backbone of online activity, relied upon by innumerable Internet users and platforms alike. Section 230’s protection remains as essential today as it was when the provision was enacted. The original authors believe that algorithms are protected. The original authors of Section 230 also don't believe that Section 230 prohibits biased platforms or prohibits platforms from having an agenda. Ron Wyden's take on the "platforms are biased" argument (https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/16/18626779/ron-wyden-section-230-facebook-regulations-neutrality https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/16/18626779/ron-wyden-sect...): > Section 230 is not about neutrality. Period. Full stop. ---- That being said, should we have better protections for platforms being strong-armed by state actors? Yes, absolutely. The government has many levers it can pull to influence private speech, and those levers need careful safeguards and we need checks in place to prevent state actors from threatening platforms and using political power to bully them into making specific moderation decisions. But while that is an admirable goal, it has nothing to do with Section 230, a law that is itself a check on government power to punish companies over moderation decisions. If you're worried about private entities being influenced by state actors -- as you say "often with the implicit threat of regulation and anti-trust action" -- then giving the government more power to determine what is and isn't "good faith" moderation is heading in the wrong direction and would make the problem even worse. The solution to the government strong-arming platforms into removing content is not to give the government more power over moderation decisions.

edmundsauto 4y ago

Perhaps I missed it, but what is the evidence for socially engineering elections? Cambridge Analytica was actually a violation of FB. I have seen emails where they discussed removing content or accounts due to policy violations, but that doesn’t sound like what you mean. While the employee base is generally left leaning, there are plenty of studies showing that platforms actually favored conservative voices. Can you elaborate with details of what you meant?

philipwhiuk 4y ago
> Cambridge Analytica was actually a violation of FB. Of their terms of service, less so the actual law.
- disgruntledphd2 4y ago
  Look, that stuff about the Big 5 and microtargeting just didn't work. How Cambridge analytical actually made money was sting operations on politicians featuring hookers and hotel rooms.