5 ms·

I don't understand, say, sites like Facebook or Twitter are private companies, who let users store their messages/photos/videos for free (they earn the money in

I don't understand, say, sites like Facebook or Twitter are private companies, who let users store their messages/photos/videos for free (they earn the money in other ways) on their premises. Good, but let's remember that it's still their property, they just let users use it, according to their own rules. The protection from lawsuits gives the tech giants more power with less responsibility. I believe the world would be a better place if web properties took more responsibility of what happens on their premises. The internet would skew back to smaller web properties, and a centralized media giant would not be able to close anyone down because they don't like them. Tech savvy people would make their own web properties, others would use it. It may or may not be connected by a federated communication protocols, but the important piece is that they own the property and be responsible of what happens there. E.g. if you invited your grandma to your forum -- be responsible of what she writes there. PS: Of course, illegal content can still be closed down (e.g. through hosting providers and domain registrars), but not by a whim of a private corporation.

mullingitover 4y ago
> I believe the world would be a better place if web properties took more responsibility of what happens on their premises. A lot of the complaints against 230 is that the sites are doing that too much, in ways that aren't to the liking of elected politicians, i.e. if twitter makes an anti-hate speech filter republicans say it's targeting conservatives, or if Facebook takes down an anti-fascism group democrats will say liberals are being targeted. Forcing more legal liability on the major content hosting platforms won't make them go away, it will just make them into record labels or movie studios from the 1950s, where only an exclusive group of tightly controlled creatives get their mundane, uncontroversial content hosted. It's not going to create some cambrian explosion of alternative platforms - that already exists, and they don't get traffic because a one-stop shop for content is a natural monopoly.
- TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
  Killing 230 would make things much harder for smaller platforms. Big players like Google and Facebook have enough resources to find a way to reduce their chances of being fined into oblivion, but smaller sites don't.
  - rmilk 4y ago
    Also the major players can lobby legislation to add burdens to new players that they already have in place themselves. This locks out new players unless they can invest upfront, while allowing the existing players to use what they already have in place. This was the biggest issue with the EU copyright restrictions where it required a massive investment up front to match what YouTube already had implemented.
  - treis 4y ago
    I think there's a middle ground. If you do a timeline or up/down vote rankings then that's just transmitting what your users post and falls under 230. If you use an algorithm to curate then you're exercising editorial discretion and get the liability that goes along with it.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
      I do not think a world where sites either must moderate everything or not at all is a good world. The most realistic way for a tiny site to be moderated is in a reactive rather than proactive fashion.
      - treis 4y ago
        It's not moderation it's promotion. If you're going to start promoting stuff it's on you to ensure you're not promoting stuff that gets people killed.
- zztop44 4y ago
  Although it’s interesting that the book publishers, record labels and movie studios of the 1950s and especially 1960s did actually put out a significant amount of extremely controversial art (along with the mundane, uncontroversial stuff) and suffered the lawsuits accordingly. I don’t know what that teaches us other than that capital, whether represented by algorithms or studio execs, tends to follow the culture as much as it creates it.
- d35007 4y ago
  > a one-stop shop for content is a natural monopoly We have YouTube, Twitch, Instagram, and TikTok. We have Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and Hacker News. We have Netflix, Disney+, Peacock, and AppleTV. Which of those is the “natural monopoly” for content?
  - pixl97 4y ago
    All those things listed are pretty damned large companies....
- deepsun 4y ago
  Making a record label or movie studio needs a big investment. But .com domain is just $11.
  - meragrin_ 4y ago
    Now all you need is processing power, a design, business logic, storage, bandwidth, users, and employees to deal with all of that.
rainsford 4y ago
> I believe the world would be a better place if web properties took more responsibility of what happens on their premises. The internet would skew back to smaller web properties, and a centralized media giant would not be able to close anyone down because they don't like them. It seems more likely to me that increased legal liability on content hosting platforms would have exactly the opposite effect. Smaller platforms aren't going to have the resources or desire to deal with the legal headache of endless lawsuits because someone didn't like what one of their posters had to say, so they're either not going to operate at all or ban everything even remotely offensive to avoid legal problems. And the larger platforms you're concerned about would have even more power, since only they can afford to play the legal liability game, and even more incentive to ban controversial speech to mitigate those legal concerns.
- deepsun 4y ago
  Smaller platforms would be more picky on who to invite. If they have power to ban users, they have responsibility to keep it clean.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Which means they don't grow at all typically. Really in the end that would push users to completely unmoderated forums, likely designed with protocols that are hard to block. The amount of bad actors and bad information would increase even further. And, these small sites you're talking about are apt to be overly responsible because of the potential risk. "Oh no you said the word bullet" BANGO BONGO, you got the BAN YO. But hey, most authoritarians would love it. They'll get a little bit of cash together and sue sites that talk about LGBT issues, or suicide prevention and say the content on those sites is terroristic in some way, further repressing speech.
    - deepsun 4y ago
      > they don't grow at all typically. Yep, as I said, internet would skew to a smaller web properties, and that's a good thing. > push users to completely unmoderated forums There's a counterexample -- Hacker News. Moderators here do a much better job at keeping it clean and focused on their intended audience than any of the big media. I'd be happy to see more of such focused forums than few huge "one-size-fits-all" platforms.

mullingitover 4y ago

> I believe the world would be a better place if web properties took more responsibility of what happens on their premises. A lot of the complaints against 230 is that the sites are doing that too much, in ways that aren't to the liking of elected politicians, i.e. if twitter makes an anti-hate speech filter republicans say it's targeting conservatives, or if Facebook takes down an anti-fascism group democrats will say liberals are being targeted. Forcing more legal liability on the major content hosting platforms won't make them go away, it will just make them into record labels or movie studios from the 1950s, where only an exclusive group of tightly controlled creatives get their mundane, uncontroversial content hosted. It's not going to create some cambrian explosion of alternative platforms - that already exists, and they don't get traffic because a one-stop shop for content is a natural monopoly.

TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
Killing 230 would make things much harder for smaller platforms. Big players like Google and Facebook have enough resources to find a way to reduce their chances of being fined into oblivion, but smaller sites don't.
- rmilk 4y ago
  Also the major players can lobby legislation to add burdens to new players that they already have in place themselves. This locks out new players unless they can invest upfront, while allowing the existing players to use what they already have in place. This was the biggest issue with the EU copyright restrictions where it required a massive investment up front to match what YouTube already had implemented.
- treis 4y ago
  I think there's a middle ground. If you do a timeline or up/down vote rankings then that's just transmitting what your users post and falls under 230. If you use an algorithm to curate then you're exercising editorial discretion and get the liability that goes along with it.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
    I do not think a world where sites either must moderate everything or not at all is a good world. The most realistic way for a tiny site to be moderated is in a reactive rather than proactive fashion.
    - treis 4y ago
      It's not moderation it's promotion. If you're going to start promoting stuff it's on you to ensure you're not promoting stuff that gets people killed.
zztop44 4y ago
Although it’s interesting that the book publishers, record labels and movie studios of the 1950s and especially 1960s did actually put out a significant amount of extremely controversial art (along with the mundane, uncontroversial stuff) and suffered the lawsuits accordingly. I don’t know what that teaches us other than that capital, whether represented by algorithms or studio execs, tends to follow the culture as much as it creates it.
d35007 4y ago
> a one-stop shop for content is a natural monopoly We have YouTube, Twitch, Instagram, and TikTok. We have Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and Hacker News. We have Netflix, Disney+, Peacock, and AppleTV. Which of those is the “natural monopoly” for content?
- pixl97 4y ago
  All those things listed are pretty damned large companies....
deepsun 4y ago
Making a record label or movie studio needs a big investment. But .com domain is just $11.
- meragrin_ 4y ago
  Now all you need is processing power, a design, business logic, storage, bandwidth, users, and employees to deal with all of that.

rainsford 4y ago

> I believe the world would be a better place if web properties took more responsibility of what happens on their premises. The internet would skew back to smaller web properties, and a centralized media giant would not be able to close anyone down because they don't like them. It seems more likely to me that increased legal liability on content hosting platforms would have exactly the opposite effect. Smaller platforms aren't going to have the resources or desire to deal with the legal headache of endless lawsuits because someone didn't like what one of their posters had to say, so they're either not going to operate at all or ban everything even remotely offensive to avoid legal problems. And the larger platforms you're concerned about would have even more power, since only they can afford to play the legal liability game, and even more incentive to ban controversial speech to mitigate those legal concerns.

deepsun 4y ago
Smaller platforms would be more picky on who to invite. If they have power to ban users, they have responsibility to keep it clean.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Which means they don't grow at all typically. Really in the end that would push users to completely unmoderated forums, likely designed with protocols that are hard to block. The amount of bad actors and bad information would increase even further. And, these small sites you're talking about are apt to be overly responsible because of the potential risk. "Oh no you said the word bullet" BANGO BONGO, you got the BAN YO. But hey, most authoritarians would love it. They'll get a little bit of cash together and sue sites that talk about LGBT issues, or suicide prevention and say the content on those sites is terroristic in some way, further repressing speech.
  - deepsun 4y ago
    > they don't grow at all typically. Yep, as I said, internet would skew to a smaller web properties, and that's a good thing. > push users to completely unmoderated forums There's a counterexample -- Hacker News. Moderators here do a much better job at keeping it clean and focused on their intended audience than any of the big media. I'd be happy to see more of such focused forums than few huge "one-size-fits-all" platforms.