3 ms·

> No, it wasn't, it was to enable forum hosts to moderate content That is incomplete. The actual reason was to isolate liability of ISPs that host online foru

> No, it wasn't, it was to enable forum hosts to moderate content That is incomplete. The actual reason was to isolate liability of ISPs that host online forums which receives user submissions and moderates those user submissions such that publication of content on those forums cannot be cause to sue the hosting ISP. The motivation had nothing to do with protecting forum moderators themselves even if that is the result of the law. > No, if it was outside of Section 230, the opposite would be the case. There is no reason to believe that outside of vague speculation, at least in the case of modern social media, because this issue remains untested against modern social media. When looking at other venues of publication moderation does occur economically without protection from section 230 or anything equivalent.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> > No, it wasn't, it was to enable forum hosts to moderate content > That is incomplete. Well, yes, you cut it in the middle of a sentence, so you have made it incomplete, but your explanation remains wrong. > The actual reason was to isolate liability of ISPs that host online forums which receives user submissions and moderates those user submissions such that publication of content on those forums cannot be cause to sue the hosting ISP. No, it wasn't. It had nothing to do with ISPs qua ISPs at all. It has to do with forum operators and their users being immune from being sued based on moderate actions. This is explicit not only in the findings and policy sections, and the legislative debates, but also in the operative text of Section 230. Its not a common carrier rule for ISPs; you seem to be confusing Section 230 with net neutrality. > The motivation had nothing to do with protecting forum moderators themselves Yes, it was entirely about that (and about encouraging them to censor content in ways in which thr government would not be free to, which is why it was packaged as part of the most extensive and intrusive internet censorship law ever passed by Congress, and is—because it is a liability shield for private censorship and not government censorship like the rest of the Communications Decency Act—the only significant part of that law not struck down for violating the First Amendment. > There is no reason to believe that outside of vague speculation No, there is the actual business environment at the time the CDA was being debated, where the inpact of the notivating decisions were working through the industry. There are very clear reasons to believe that, those reasons were the actual arguments made in Congress for Section 230, and they are the reason Section 230 exists. Your narrative is consistent neither with the text of the law, nor with the legislative history, nor with the broader legal and business history surrounding the adoption of Section 230. It seems to be a narratige constructed around presenting what a lot of people have argued that they would like to replace Section 230 with as if it were the original motivation for the bill, which is simply historically unsupportable. > When looking at other venues of publication moderation does occur economically without protection from section 230 Other venues of publication have scale controlled by things like manufacturing and distribution costs, so the marginal costs of comprehensive review once you are doing any moderation is a small share of total costs. Internet fora have extremely low distribution and manufacturing costs per unit of content, so the marginal cost of comprehensive review over limited moderation is enormous. The assumption of (and thus imposition of the burden of) comprehensive knowledge of and liability for contents when an entity takes any moderation steps that is reasonable with, e.g., print publication simply is not with interactive comluter services.
- austin-cheney 3y ago
  > Your narrative is consistent neither with the text of the law, nor with the legislative history, nor with the broader legal and business history surrounding the adoption of Section 230. The law only mentions content provider. What is that? The law doesn't say. Its broad. Its so vague that it could comprise the ISP, the ethernet cable plugged into your computer, the website, a moderating person, the drafter of a moderating policy, and just about anything else touched by an electron. As such its impossible to be wrong in interpretation because all interpretations are allowed as the law is written, which is precisely why everybody online is granted blanket immunity. That is the greatest example of tort reform as all torts are expressly eliminated to/from all parties. That is absolutely not the intent.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > The law only mentions content provider No, actually, the law mentions "interactive computer service" as the protected entity. And it defines the term. Yes, that definition explicitly includes ISPs, since there were rising demands that they offer content filtering which would, under the existing precedent, incur publisher liability, but it also extends beyond it, and the motivating cases were not about ISPs qua ISPs. It refers to information content providers, but those are the people who are liable, and whose existence distinct from the interactive computer service makes the interactive computer service not liable. It also rather specifically defines that term, as well. See, generally, 47 USC Sec. 230(f) > As such its impossible to be wrong in interpretation No, its not. > because all interpretations are allowed as the law is written Well, if you ignore the actual text of the law as badly as you are, I can see where you would get that idea. > which is precisely why everybody online is granted blanket immunity. No, everyone online is not granted blanket immunity; people online have successfully been sued for various torts. > That is the greatest example of tort reform as all torts are expressly eliminated to/from all parties. That's...not how Section 230 works, in practice, nor is it even consistent with the rest of your argument (which is that it was implicitly through vagueness, not explicitly), which, as already stated, is also wrong.
    - austin-cheney 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> > No, it wasn't, it was to enable forum hosts to moderate content > That is incomplete. Well, yes, you cut it in the middle of a sentence, so you have made it incomplete, but your explanation remains wrong. > The actual reason was to isolate liability of ISPs that host online forums which receives user submissions and moderates those user submissions such that publication of content on those forums cannot be cause to sue the hosting ISP. No, it wasn't. It had nothing to do with ISPs qua ISPs at all. It has to do with forum operators and their users being immune from being sued based on moderate actions. This is explicit not only in the findings and policy sections, and the legislative debates, but also in the operative text of Section 230. Its not a common carrier rule for ISPs; you seem to be confusing Section 230 with net neutrality. > The motivation had nothing to do with protecting forum moderators themselves Yes, it was entirely about that (and about encouraging them to censor content in ways in which thr government would not be free to, which is why it was packaged as part of the most extensive and intrusive internet censorship law ever passed by Congress, and is—because it is a liability shield for private censorship and not government censorship like the rest of the Communications Decency Act—the only significant part of that law not struck down for violating the First Amendment. > There is no reason to believe that outside of vague speculation No, there is the actual business environment at the time the CDA was being debated, where the inpact of the notivating decisions were working through the industry. There are very clear reasons to believe that, those reasons were the actual arguments made in Congress for Section 230, and they are the reason Section 230 exists. Your narrative is consistent neither with the text of the law, nor with the legislative history, nor with the broader legal and business history surrounding the adoption of Section 230. It seems to be a narratige constructed around presenting what a lot of people have argued that they would like to replace Section 230 with as if it were the original motivation for the bill, which is simply historically unsupportable. > When looking at other venues of publication moderation does occur economically without protection from section 230 Other venues of publication have scale controlled by things like manufacturing and distribution costs, so the marginal costs of comprehensive review once you are doing any moderation is a small share of total costs. Internet fora have extremely low distribution and manufacturing costs per unit of content, so the marginal cost of comprehensive review over limited moderation is enormous. The assumption of (and thus imposition of the burden of) comprehensive knowledge of and liability for contents when an entity takes any moderation steps that is reasonable with, e.g., print publication simply is not with interactive comluter services.

austin-cheney 3y ago
> Your narrative is consistent neither with the text of the law, nor with the legislative history, nor with the broader legal and business history surrounding the adoption of Section 230. The law only mentions content provider. What is that? The law doesn't say. Its broad. Its so vague that it could comprise the ISP, the ethernet cable plugged into your computer, the website, a moderating person, the drafter of a moderating policy, and just about anything else touched by an electron. As such its impossible to be wrong in interpretation because all interpretations are allowed as the law is written, which is precisely why everybody online is granted blanket immunity. That is the greatest example of tort reform as all torts are expressly eliminated to/from all parties. That is absolutely not the intent.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The law only mentions content provider No, actually, the law mentions "interactive computer service" as the protected entity. And it defines the term. Yes, that definition explicitly includes ISPs, since there were rising demands that they offer content filtering which would, under the existing precedent, incur publisher liability, but it also extends beyond it, and the motivating cases were not about ISPs qua ISPs. It refers to information content providers, but those are the people who are liable, and whose existence distinct from the interactive computer service makes the interactive computer service not liable. It also rather specifically defines that term, as well. See, generally, 47 USC Sec. 230(f) > As such its impossible to be wrong in interpretation No, its not. > because all interpretations are allowed as the law is written Well, if you ignore the actual text of the law as badly as you are, I can see where you would get that idea. > which is precisely why everybody online is granted blanket immunity. No, everyone online is not granted blanket immunity; people online have successfully been sued for various torts. > That is the greatest example of tort reform as all torts are expressly eliminated to/from all parties. That's...not how Section 230 works, in practice, nor is it even consistent with the rest of your argument (which is that it was implicitly through vagueness, not explicitly), which, as already stated, is also wrong.
  - austin-cheney 3y ago