3 ms·

Easily resolved: Remind X that they are responsible for all content published on their platform. You cant expect to have immunity under section 230 if you aren

Easily resolved: Remind X that they are responsible for all content published on their platform. You cant expect to have immunity under section 230 if you arent going to provide "good samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material. The exemption is what has allowed the internet to become what it has today. Lawmakers have already threatened to change this in the past. I'd much rather they see the current law already handles bad actors than for them to introduce something "new".

ch4s3 3y ago
That isn’t the law works. And 230 aside, they do have speech rights. The law protects against the government compelling speech. * edit to fix typo
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- supermatt 3y ago
  > That isn’t the law works. That is the actual law: https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt > Thermale protects against the government compelling speech. What compelled speech?
  - tzs 3y ago
    That is probably the most useless yet technically correct link anyone has ever given here, so congratulations on that. :-) For those who don't want to try to find in that nearly 50000 word bill that is a massive mix of additions and diffs updating a large part of telecommunication law, here is a link to where the small section that is relevant to this discussion ended up in codified in the US code [1]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Clarification: I am not saying that their interpretation of Section 230 is correct. I am just saying that the link they provided to the text of Section 230 is in fact a link to the text of Section 230.
    - ch4s3 3y ago
      The law specifically doesn't say: >You cant expect to have immunity under section 230 if you arent going to provide "good samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material. In fact the law does not obligate service providers to moderate at all (except in accordance with a few narrow laws around sex trafficking, IP, and some criminal stuff). It does say that IF you moderate: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. The phrase "offensive material", doesn't mean offensive to ME in particular or to a "reasonable person" necessarily but in context if means offensive to the service provider.
  - ch4s3 3y ago
    The good samaritan clause doesn't say that the provider of an internet service HAS to provide those things, just that you aren't considered the publisher or speaker if you DO moderate. Compelling the company to disclose their internal moderation discussions is compelled speech. The 1st amendment provides broad protections here. The argument that their internal moderation discussions are like ingredients in a physical product is really flimsy.
- fuzzybear3965 3y ago
  What's Thermale?
  - ch4s3 3y ago
    A typo from my cell phone
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
madeofpalk 3y ago
The only result making social networks more responsible for user's content is that more content would be automatically blocked. Imagine Youtube's Content ID auto-moderation, but removing all text content as well. "yay"
- kurthr 3y ago
  They're blocking content (or demonetizing) for their own profit. Whether it's to keep advertisers or lower their payouts is a bit irrelevant. Maybe being forced (under penalty of law) to reveal at least the process of that moderation would make it more clear internally and both to users and generators what they're up to allowing "the product" to make decisions in a bit less of a vacuum. Darkness and opacity in moderation doesn't seem like it serves the public interest.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
empath-nirvana 3y ago
> You cant expect to have immunity under section 230 if you arent going to provide "good samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material. This is actually incorrect. Section 230 _allows_ blocking and screening, but doesn't _require_ it.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Specifically, Section 230 makes clear that IF you make a good faith effort to remove illegal content from your platform, you will not be held liable for illegal content you miss. That's it. Nothing about "publisher vs platform" or whatever. The entire point of the law, as designed, and intentionally, was to prevent every single website owner from being in violation of child porn laws. It is an EXTRA freedom, given to website operators.

ch4s3 3y ago

That isn’t the law works. And 230 aside, they do have speech rights. The law protects against the government compelling speech. * edit to fix typo

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
supermatt 3y ago
> That isn’t the law works. That is the actual law: https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt > Thermale protects against the government compelling speech. What compelled speech?
- tzs 3y ago
  That is probably the most useless yet technically correct link anyone has ever given here, so congratulations on that. :-) For those who don't want to try to find in that nearly 50000 word bill that is a massive mix of additions and diffs updating a large part of telecommunication law, here is a link to where the small section that is relevant to this discussion ended up in codified in the US code [1]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Clarification: I am not saying that their interpretation of Section 230 is correct. I am just saying that the link they provided to the text of Section 230 is in fact a link to the text of Section 230.
  - ch4s3 3y ago
    The law specifically doesn't say: >You cant expect to have immunity under section 230 if you arent going to provide "good samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material. In fact the law does not obligate service providers to moderate at all (except in accordance with a few narrow laws around sex trafficking, IP, and some criminal stuff). It does say that IF you moderate: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. The phrase "offensive material", doesn't mean offensive to ME in particular or to a "reasonable person" necessarily but in context if means offensive to the service provider.
- ch4s3 3y ago
  The good samaritan clause doesn't say that the provider of an internet service HAS to provide those things, just that you aren't considered the publisher or speaker if you DO moderate. Compelling the company to disclose their internal moderation discussions is compelled speech. The 1st amendment provides broad protections here. The argument that their internal moderation discussions are like ingredients in a physical product is really flimsy.
fuzzybear3965 3y ago
What's Thermale?
- ch4s3 3y ago
  A typo from my cell phone

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

madeofpalk 3y ago

The only result making social networks more responsible for user's content is that more content would be automatically blocked. Imagine Youtube's Content ID auto-moderation, but removing all text content as well. "yay"

kurthr 3y ago
They're blocking content (or demonetizing) for their own profit. Whether it's to keep advertisers or lower their payouts is a bit irrelevant. Maybe being forced (under penalty of law) to reveal at least the process of that moderation would make it more clear internally and both to users and generators what they're up to allowing "the product" to make decisions in a bit less of a vacuum. Darkness and opacity in moderation doesn't seem like it serves the public interest.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

empath-nirvana 3y ago

> You cant expect to have immunity under section 230 if you arent going to provide "good samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material. This is actually incorrect. Section 230 _allows_ blocking and screening, but doesn't _require_ it.

mrguyorama 3y ago
Specifically, Section 230 makes clear that IF you make a good faith effort to remove illegal content from your platform, you will not be held liable for illegal content you miss. That's it. Nothing about "publisher vs platform" or whatever. The entire point of the law, as designed, and intentionally, was to prevent every single website owner from being in violation of child porn laws. It is an EXTRA freedom, given to website operators.