4 ms·

>> Twitter alone cannot screen every single piece of user-generated content with 100% accuracy. Imposing liability on such services for harmful content that uni

>> Twitter alone cannot screen every single piece of user-generated content with 100% accuracy. Imposing liability on such services for harmful content that unintentionally falls through the crack would have disincentivized them from hosting any user-generated content," So what? People can host their own content. I'm not arguing either way, but to suggest the viability of a particular business model should influence the decision isn't right. Either treat them like common carriers and make them host everything without moderation, or hold them liable for it. Or is my thinking obsolete somehow?

Georgelemental 3y ago
That would be disastrous for small community forums, that want to moderate but don't have the resources to do it perfectly. It's hard to find a police that works well for all of Twitter-scale, HN-scale, and small-PHP-forum scale.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Literally the point of the CDA was to avoid that dichotomy, because that was more or less what the law was before that and Congress wanted websites to remove pornography etc., which they wouldn't be willing to do if it came with liability for hosting anything they didn't remove.
wvenable 3y ago
> So what? People can host their own content. How do they do that? It's services all the way down.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  Providing hosting, or an Internet pipe, is pretty different from accepting user submissions and adding them to your own systems to be presented to others as you see fit, often with broad claims of ownership over submitted content.
Analemma_ 3y ago
Your thinking isn't obsolete, it's more just... incorrect about what Section 230 says and why it exists. You should probably read the TechDirt "You Are Wrong About Section 230" article[0] and get some misconceptions cleared up. [0]: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
petsfed 3y ago
The problem is that community owners should have the right to moderate what is posted on their community. If I'm a small-timer running my Space: Above and Beyond fan forum on a raspberry pi in my garage, I should have the right to remove posts from that guy who repeatedly posts child porn. Further, I should not be held liable for his content because I took a vacation from moderating, I should not be punished for taking down his posts if they look like child porn (but are in fact just sketchy looking), and I should not need to keep a lawyer on retainer to determine if any given post is in fact illegal. A publisher vets every single post, because the cost of publishing any one thing is fairly high. To my mind, the problem with Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc is not that they moderate content, its that they've been allowed to grow so large as to meaningfully impact the world with their moderation.
NegativeK 3y ago
> People can host their own content. This destroys the modern internet. I really don't understand the opposition to moderation. 230 doesn't encourage monopolies; if people don't like the moderation, they can switch to other another service or, as you put it, host their own.
nova22033 3y ago
> Either treat them like common carriers If you make a bomb threat over a verizon line, verizon won't be held liable for the bomb threat
elpool2 3y ago
I don't understand this "can't have it both ways" argument. Moderation on social media is a good thing, it would be less usable without it. It's also good that people can post their thoughts to the world without a bunch of pre-approval by platforms to make sure it's legal (which would be nearly impossible to do well anyway). I also don't see any reason why platforms should be liable for things their users post. The person who posted it should be to blame, as they have the most direct responsibility for it. Overall I see section 230 as mostly beneficial without much downside at all, and the results have been incredibly positive. Courts shouldn't decide cases based on the viability of a business model, but we can certainly write laws for those reasons.

Georgelemental 3y ago

That would be disastrous for small community forums, that want to moderate but don't have the resources to do it perfectly. It's hard to find a police that works well for all of Twitter-scale, HN-scale, and small-PHP-forum scale.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

Literally the point of the CDA was to avoid that dichotomy, because that was more or less what the law was before that and Congress wanted websites to remove pornography etc., which they wouldn't be willing to do if it came with liability for hosting anything they didn't remove.

wvenable 3y ago

> So what? People can host their own content. How do they do that? It's services all the way down.

yamtaddle 3y ago
Providing hosting, or an Internet pipe, is pretty different from accepting user submissions and adding them to your own systems to be presented to others as you see fit, often with broad claims of ownership over submitted content.

Analemma_ 3y ago

Your thinking isn't obsolete, it's more just... incorrect about what Section 230 says and why it exists. You should probably read the TechDirt "You Are Wrong About Section 230" article[0] and get some misconceptions cleared up. [0]: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

petsfed 3y ago

The problem is that community owners should have the right to moderate what is posted on their community. If I'm a small-timer running my Space: Above and Beyond fan forum on a raspberry pi in my garage, I should have the right to remove posts from that guy who repeatedly posts child porn. Further, I should not be held liable for his content because I took a vacation from moderating, I should not be punished for taking down his posts if they look like child porn (but are in fact just sketchy looking), and I should not need to keep a lawyer on retainer to determine if any given post is in fact illegal. A publisher vets every single post, because the cost of publishing any one thing is fairly high. To my mind, the problem with Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc is not that they moderate content, its that they've been allowed to grow so large as to meaningfully impact the world with their moderation.

NegativeK 3y ago

> People can host their own content. This destroys the modern internet. I really don't understand the opposition to moderation. 230 doesn't encourage monopolies; if people don't like the moderation, they can switch to other another service or, as you put it, host their own.

nova22033 3y ago

> Either treat them like common carriers If you make a bomb threat over a verizon line, verizon won't be held liable for the bomb threat

elpool2 3y ago

I don't understand this "can't have it both ways" argument. Moderation on social media is a good thing, it would be less usable without it. It's also good that people can post their thoughts to the world without a bunch of pre-approval by platforms to make sure it's legal (which would be nearly impossible to do well anyway). I also don't see any reason why platforms should be liable for things their users post. The person who posted it should be to blame, as they have the most direct responsibility for it. Overall I see section 230 as mostly beneficial without much downside at all, and the results have been incredibly positive. Courts shouldn't decide cases based on the viability of a business model, but we can certainly write laws for those reasons.