4 ms·

There's a good breakdown of the situation and arguments here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzNo5lZCq5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzNo5lZCq5M). The tl;

There's a good breakdown of the situation and arguments here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzNo5lZCq5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzNo5lZCq5M). The tl;dr is that it may not be possible to split a hair as thin as the difference between an automated recommendation algorithm and automated (or manual) moderation (if the system chooses not to put your tweets in the Trending Topics, are we refraining from up-signalling you or down-signalling you? Is "signal" on a continuous real number line or two separate number lines?). If the Court rules narrowly against Google, it'll be a major change to the function of much of the Internet (we can expect companies to respond to the new liability by switching off their recommendation systems completely), but the fundamental way-of-life we know today will continue. If the Court rules broadly against Google, it functionally kills S230 and opens the entire Internet up to massive liability lawsuits in a way that may end online fora for all but the "judgment proof" of the world. Not even HN would likely be able to afford to operate if anyone posting a controversial idea slips through the moderation cracks and gets seen. The site would have to go to moderate-all-by-default, not post-and-then-moderate.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
I presume that non-profit forums would be judgement proof (literal first amendment grounds). Possibly even including non-profit forums attached to a for-profit entity. With regard to Hacker News in particular the only possibly problematic element would be the YC-linked advertisement posts. Of course I'm not a lawyer. But section 230 is not the only protection here.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  For-profit or non-profit seems to make 0 difference to any of the discussed arguments. Also, the first amendment doesn't protect you from accusations of libel or defamation etc. There are limits to it, and a company that is knowingly spreading either could be on the hook for huge lawsuits if not under section 230 protections. For example, if a newspaper published a reader letter that accused some rich dude of having defrauded them, the newspaper itself would probably be liable just as much as the reader whose letter was sent. Apply this same logic to any HN comment and you'll get a huge issue - and being a non-profit is entirely irrelevant to this.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  No; "Judgment-proof" means "too poor to be sued because there is no universe in which the costs will be repaid," not "Case too worthless to bring." Anything that is criminal liability is never judgment-proof (when jail is on the table, a defendant can always "pay" with their freedom); civil liability is judgment-proof if the defendant could never possibly scrape together the cash to make the plaintiff whole. Basically anything First Amendment-grounded can pass the bar of worth bringing to court because the First Amendment protections are a patchwork of carve-outs, exceptions, and careful interpretations to stretch the ideal of "The government cannot constrain the people here" over the reality of "Some speech is harmful in a way that cannot be made whole." There's nothing about being a nonprofit that prevents some Internet rando from using your forums to post massive obviously-false defamatory statements. The only thing that keeps the forums themselves from catching a lawsuit when that happens is s230.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    > The only thing that keeps the forums themselves from catching a lawsuit when that happens is s230. Section 230 came about because of suits against for-profit entities. Has there ever been suit against the likes of IRC, USENET, or BBSes for libel from content of their participants?
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      It would have to be a suit against individual nodes, which would certainly increase the cost (particularly for something like USENET). ... But that's a little irrelevant because those services are ghost towns relative to the past now. The more pressing reason nobody would bother to sue those channels is because nobody cares what's said there. If the loss of s230 shuttered the web services, and there were a migration back to those channels instead of just a quieter internet... Eventually a threshold would be reached that would be worth it for somebody to fire off a salvo of lawsuits against those service providers. A lot of IRC and USENET nodes are tied to institutions with enough assets that they aren't judgment-proof.
- pixl97 4y ago
  You're thinking about this the wrong way. You could potentially attack a forum by posting verboten content on it then turn around an petition the government/state to sue the forum out of existence. A new form of SLAPP.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

I presume that non-profit forums would be judgement proof (literal first amendment grounds). Possibly even including non-profit forums attached to a for-profit entity. With regard to Hacker News in particular the only possibly problematic element would be the YC-linked advertisement posts. Of course I'm not a lawyer. But section 230 is not the only protection here.

tsimionescu 4y ago
For-profit or non-profit seems to make 0 difference to any of the discussed arguments. Also, the first amendment doesn't protect you from accusations of libel or defamation etc. There are limits to it, and a company that is knowingly spreading either could be on the hook for huge lawsuits if not under section 230 protections. For example, if a newspaper published a reader letter that accused some rich dude of having defrauded them, the newspaper itself would probably be liable just as much as the reader whose letter was sent. Apply this same logic to any HN comment and you'll get a huge issue - and being a non-profit is entirely irrelevant to this.
shadowgovt 4y ago
No; "Judgment-proof" means "too poor to be sued because there is no universe in which the costs will be repaid," not "Case too worthless to bring." Anything that is criminal liability is never judgment-proof (when jail is on the table, a defendant can always "pay" with their freedom); civil liability is judgment-proof if the defendant could never possibly scrape together the cash to make the plaintiff whole. Basically anything First Amendment-grounded can pass the bar of worth bringing to court because the First Amendment protections are a patchwork of carve-outs, exceptions, and careful interpretations to stretch the ideal of "The government cannot constrain the people here" over the reality of "Some speech is harmful in a way that cannot be made whole." There's nothing about being a nonprofit that prevents some Internet rando from using your forums to post massive obviously-false defamatory statements. The only thing that keeps the forums themselves from catching a lawsuit when that happens is s230.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  > The only thing that keeps the forums themselves from catching a lawsuit when that happens is s230. Section 230 came about because of suits against for-profit entities. Has there ever been suit against the likes of IRC, USENET, or BBSes for libel from content of their participants?
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    It would have to be a suit against individual nodes, which would certainly increase the cost (particularly for something like USENET). ... But that's a little irrelevant because those services are ghost towns relative to the past now. The more pressing reason nobody would bother to sue those channels is because nobody cares what's said there. If the loss of s230 shuttered the web services, and there were a migration back to those channels instead of just a quieter internet... Eventually a threshold would be reached that would be worth it for somebody to fire off a salvo of lawsuits against those service providers. A lot of IRC and USENET nodes are tied to institutions with enough assets that they aren't judgment-proof.
pixl97 4y ago
You're thinking about this the wrong way. You could potentially attack a forum by posting verboten content on it then turn around an petition the government/state to sue the forum out of existence. A new form of SLAPP.