5 ms·

I've said it before, and I'll again: websites should be held responsible for the data they serve, either direct, or by embedding some ad-script that loads 253 o

I've said it before, and I'll again: websites should be held responsible for the data they serve, either direct, or by embedding some ad-script that loads 253 other scripts. Let's say I visit a Costco warehouse, and there's a 3rd party vendor there. He offers me a box of pans. I take those pans, the box breaks open and a 20 lbs pan falls on my foot breaking it. Who is responsible? Costco? Or the vendor? Who do I have an implicit contract with when entering a Costco warehouse? Same with Google. If the ad downloads malware, we should hold Google responsible.

nottathrowaway3 4y ago
> I've said it before, and I'll [say it] again: websites should be held responsible for the data they serve If that were the case, HN, reddit, YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc. would all have to shut down. There are a bunch of illegal things posted on all websites with user-generated content -- copyright violations, hate speech, financial advice, advising people to kill themselves -- all of which are illegal. You're suggesting we make the website owner liable? > I've said it before, and I'll [say it] again Removing section 230 protection as you're suggesting would be such a radical change in the internet as we know it. This argument is so stale. Please stop saying it again and again.
- jeremyjh 4y ago
  Section 230 requires them to act in good faith to moderate the content. It isn’t unreasonable to expect better from Google. The problem is they get paid by the malware distributors to help distribute malware but can’t afford to police it adequately?
  - nottathrowaway3 4y ago
    No one can afford to police it adequately due to the halting problem. import os os.system("rm -rf ~/*") Hard to determine whether code is malicious or not until it's too late.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - MinorTom 4y ago
    No it doesn't. Section 230 was created to optionally allow them to moderate their content without being liable, whereas previously they would not have been allowed to moderate.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  The difference is that Google gets paid money to serve the ads - HN, etc don't. So you could start by repealing Section 230 only in cases where there's a direct monetary cost to publish - this would spare all the free user-generated-content websites while clamping down on malicious companies profiting off serving illegal/harmful content.
  - yazzku 4y ago
    What do you mean? Everyone gets paid to serve ads, right? Otherwise, why are you serving ads? Not that I disagree with the accountability. Google and the other platforms are royally irresponsible.
    - Nextgrid 4y ago
      If I make a scam post on HN, Facebook, etc, their bottom line won't change regardless of whether it gets deleted or how many people end up seeing it. If I make a scam ad, there's a direct correlation between the amount of potential victims seeing it and how much money they make, so there's a monetary incentive to accept malicious ads and not ask too many questions.
teawrecks 4y ago
> websites should be held responsible for the data they serve Isn't this exactly the root of the section 230 debate? > the box breaks open and a 20 lbs pan falls on my foot breaking it. Insurance would cover it. If it keeps happening then costco's insurance premiums will be higher or they may be dropped as a customer. I wonder if they'll try replacing 230 with something along these lines. Imagine having to get insurance in order to host a publicly facing website. Imagine not having insurance because you're just hosting a simple blog. Imagine someone accusing your site of giving them malware. What needs to be proven? By whom? Does someone have to pay for a forensic analysis of all systems involved? Is the alternative just settling out of court? Would this be abused? This seems like a much more convoluted hell of a system. I recommend, if you don't trust google, don't use google.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
hanniabu 4y ago
Bad example but I get what you're saying and agree. On the other hand: profit
spencerchubb 4y ago
If Google recommends costco.com and then you buy something and get harmed, should Google be liable?
- yazzku 4y ago
  costco.com is legal, malware is (often) not. Google is distributing malware, and getting paid for it. It is also actively promoting rogue websites that stand for the original product. This all seems very different from your costco example.

nottathrowaway3 4y ago

> I've said it before, and I'll [say it] again: websites should be held responsible for the data they serve If that were the case, HN, reddit, YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc. would all have to shut down. There are a bunch of illegal things posted on all websites with user-generated content -- copyright violations, hate speech, financial advice, advising people to kill themselves -- all of which are illegal. You're suggesting we make the website owner liable? > I've said it before, and I'll [say it] again Removing section 230 protection as you're suggesting would be such a radical change in the internet as we know it. This argument is so stale. Please stop saying it again and again.

jeremyjh 4y ago
Section 230 requires them to act in good faith to moderate the content. It isn’t unreasonable to expect better from Google. The problem is they get paid by the malware distributors to help distribute malware but can’t afford to police it adequately?
- nottathrowaway3 4y ago
  No one can afford to police it adequately due to the halting problem. import os os.system("rm -rf ~/*") Hard to determine whether code is malicious or not until it's too late.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- MinorTom 4y ago
  No it doesn't. Section 230 was created to optionally allow them to moderate their content without being liable, whereas previously they would not have been allowed to moderate.
Nextgrid 4y ago
The difference is that Google gets paid money to serve the ads - HN, etc don't. So you could start by repealing Section 230 only in cases where there's a direct monetary cost to publish - this would spare all the free user-generated-content websites while clamping down on malicious companies profiting off serving illegal/harmful content.
- yazzku 4y ago
  What do you mean? Everyone gets paid to serve ads, right? Otherwise, why are you serving ads? Not that I disagree with the accountability. Google and the other platforms are royally irresponsible.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    If I make a scam post on HN, Facebook, etc, their bottom line won't change regardless of whether it gets deleted or how many people end up seeing it. If I make a scam ad, there's a direct correlation between the amount of potential victims seeing it and how much money they make, so there's a monetary incentive to accept malicious ads and not ask too many questions.

teawrecks 4y ago

> websites should be held responsible for the data they serve Isn't this exactly the root of the section 230 debate? > the box breaks open and a 20 lbs pan falls on my foot breaking it. Insurance would cover it. If it keeps happening then costco's insurance premiums will be higher or they may be dropped as a customer. I wonder if they'll try replacing 230 with something along these lines. Imagine having to get insurance in order to host a publicly facing website. Imagine not having insurance because you're just hosting a simple blog. Imagine someone accusing your site of giving them malware. What needs to be proven? By whom? Does someone have to pay for a forensic analysis of all systems involved? Is the alternative just settling out of court? Would this be abused? This seems like a much more convoluted hell of a system. I recommend, if you don't trust google, don't use google.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

hanniabu 4y ago

Bad example but I get what you're saying and agree. On the other hand: profit

spencerchubb 4y ago

If Google recommends costco.com and then you buy something and get harmed, should Google be liable?

yazzku 4y ago
costco.com is legal, malware is (often) not. Google is distributing malware, and getting paid for it. It is also actively promoting rogue websites that stand for the original product. This all seems very different from your costco example.