8 ms·

My concern, ultimately, is what's going to happen when these laws are introduced and a republican congress continues to pursue a rejection of Section 230? So s

My concern, ultimately, is what's going to happen when these laws are introduced and a republican congress continues to pursue a rejection of Section 230? So social media platforms are no longer able to censor any content posted to their sites (outside of specific cases), but are also liable for what users post to their platform? If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say these actions are specifically to make social media itself inhospitable in a legal sense. What company wants to take the risk of not being able to moderate user-generated content but are also legally responsible for that same content?

cuckatoo 3y ago
Do we need to protect the social media platforms? Do they even add value to society?
- dingnuts 3y ago
  I'm sure the spooks agree that information was a lot easier to control when it was just ABC, NBC, and CBS
- notaustinpowers 3y ago
  Do you think this would stop at the big boys like Facebook and Twitter? What about Reddit? If I post a story in r/AITAH that the other person discovers, this opens Reddit up to a possible libel lawsuit if the other person thinks I'm not being truthful. Do you think that's a risk that Reddit's legal department will let them take? I highly doubt it. Do you think unpaid volunteer mods want to be legally liable if they remove a post for violating guidelines? Let's go another level deeper, your neighborhood's Nextdoor forum. If Susan from down the road starts saying I slept with her husband to bad mouth me on the app, I could not just sue Susan for libel, but I can also include Nextdoor in the lawsuit. Do you think Nextdoor's legal team will allow that? Again, nope. But Nextdoor wouldn't be able to remove Susan's post because it would be "silencing her freedom of speech". So instead, Nextdoor takes the logical legal decision to completely remove any user-generated posts, effectively killing their product. And another level deeper, some random classic car forum with maybe 100 users per month. What do they do? I think you get the hint. This isn't just going to affect social media platforms. This will affect all platforms that allow users to post in any capacity, text, photos, videos, links, etc.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- simpletone 3y ago
  > Do they even add value to society? Your presence here is your answer. Why are you here if social media doesn't provide any value? You'd have to be braindead to not understand the immense value social media has added to society. But like all things, social media has it's negative aspects. But just because social media isn't perfect, doesn't mean it has no value. As I said, your presence here is proof of that.
  - tarxvf 3y ago
    I guess I'm braindead. Their presence here does not indicate they value their time here in a net-positive way. It offers no proof whatsoever. They could be addicted. FOMO could drive them to compulsively check the site. It might be their only social interaction at all during the workday. This might be the only group of people on the internet with similar interests. None of those things would necessarily make it a net-good thing, if it also has negative repercussions that outweight the benefits. Many drugs, legal and illegal, are fairly harmful. Sometimes the benefits are worth the negatives. Sometimes they are very firmly not. Much of the anti-social-media position is about social media being addicting and net-harmful. I personally don't see the immense value that you see. I've seen some value for some specific sites for some short, specific times. My grandma could interact with some of her grandkids for a short while on Facebook, for instance. Of course, she (or we) used to just pick up the phone, which is what happens now too. I've seen some cool projects on HN I'd otherwise likely never have seen. Otherwise I'm drawing a blank.
    - simpletone 3y ago
      > I guess I'm braindead. Lets see shall we. > None of those things would necessarily make it a net-good thing Who is talking 'net' here? The commenter simply questioned whether social media added any value to society. To deny social media has provided any value to society is as braindead as denying that fossil fuels added value to society. Now whether the negatives outweight the positives ( aka net value ) is an entirely different question. > My grandma could interact with some of her grandkids for a short while on Facebook, for instance. Of course, she (or we) used to just pick up the phone, which is what happens now too. I've seen some cool projects on HN I'd otherwise likely never have seen. Oh so it does provide value. So you are agreeing with me then? > Otherwise I'm drawing a blank. You aren't braindead. You are disingenuous. So you never asked for or search for information on reddit, hn, stackoverflow, etc. You never found solutions to problems on tiktok, youtube, etc? You don't know anyone who found a job via hn, linkedin, etc? Bought or sold stuff on facebook, etc? If you believe that the negatives of social media outweigh the positives of social media, then fine. That's your opinion. But to cavalierly dismiss or deny that social media provides value to society is being disingenuous at best or braindead at worst. Or more likely agenda driven nonsense. Your comment reminds me of this excellent monty python clip: What have the romans done for us? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
lgleason 3y ago
This is why we can't have nice things. The social media platforms took things too far. Most republicans would be in favor of the platforms not being liable for content if they don't censor. Most and both political sides would probably also agree that they should be taking steps to protect minors from child predators etc., and that was the intent behind 230 protections. The social media platforms took 230 beyond what is was initially intended for as a premise to weaponize it against people who's politics they don't agree with. Obviously with that kinds of a loophole 230 was not well thought out from that regard and would need a re-write.
- nobody9999 3y ago
  >The social media platforms took 230 beyond what is was initially intended for as a premise to weaponize it against people who's politics they don't agree with. So what? And I mean that quite seriously. To clarify, I despise the big social media platforms and refuse to use them even if that inconveniences me (and occasionally it does). At the same time, those platforms have the same free speech rights that I do, and curtailment of their free speech (and property) rights (in this case, the right not to publish/amplify the speech of others) also curtails my free speech (and property) rights. And since I want to protect my own rights, I support the right of those rapacious scumbags to moderate/censor on their own private property.
  - ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
    If platforms are going to be editors then they don't need section 230 protection.
  - someuser2345 3y ago
    You're right, these companies do have the right to censor speech that they disagree with. However, if they do that, then they are responsible for any speech that they do not censor. So for instance, if someone posts a libelous statement on Reddit, and Reddit doesn't remove that statement, then victim of libel should be allowed to sue Reddit directly, instead of just suing whoever made that post.
vik0 3y ago
>to make social media itself inhospitable I see nothing wrong with that. Social media has done nothing but harm its users, and people that know its users (or: everybody)
- halfmatthalfcat 3y ago
  > Social media has done nothing but harm its users Nothing? I don't think it's that cut and dry. While there has been harm, no doubt, there has been a lot of positives too (maintaining connections, thoughtful conversations, etc).
- NavinF 3y ago
  Then why did you write this comment on HN (an example of social media)?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  Then why are you writing here on this social media and harming people? Social media is such a big part of modern communications, that arguing against it is like arguing against telephone lines or the printing press. There's a lot to criticise the owner companies for, including how social media can harm people and infamously promote and accelerate genocide, such as Facebook is accused of having done in Myanmar. But the same accusations can be levied against any means of communication and publishing technology.
- notaustinpowers 3y ago
  Thanks for your comment here on the social media site, Hacker News! I think we have to reorient ourselves on what counts as social media. It's not just Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. It's forums like Hacker News, it's comment sections on your favorite blogs you frequent. It's the products available on Etsy or a small creator's personal Shopify store. Free speech isn't just about photos and text, it covers all forms of expression.
tekla 3y ago
Why single out Republicans? The Democrats hate Section 230 as much as the republicans.
- michaelt 3y ago
  The Florida and Texas laws were both passed by Republican legislatures. And Biden and Obama have not yet been banned by Twitter.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    And yet GP is broadly correct: “The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms. It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.” - Joe Biden https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/08/white-house-renews-call-to-remove-section-230-liability-shield-00055771 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/08/white-house-renews-... https://slate.com/technology/2021/03/section-230-reform-legislative-tracker.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/03/section-230-reform-legi...
- DinoDad13 3y ago
  what?
DoodahMan 3y ago
i share your tinfoilery: the goal is to erode public discourse on the internet, censorship (self or otherwise), and so on.
hellojesus 3y ago
> My concern, ultimately, is what's going to happen when these laws are introduced and a republican congress continues to pursue a rejection of Section 230? It's not a mystery. Look what happened when sesta/fosta became law. Craigslist had to dump their entire personal section for fear they miss a single ill intentioned post. The consequence of 230 removal is only to destroy the ability for people to interact with one another publicly online unless one of them (or the platform) is willing to take on liability for the interaction.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  that's bullshit, we don't need platforms to interact online, we were doing that fine before myspace and facebook and perhaps you're too young to remember that but it worked pretty well and we were all on the hook for what we hosted on our sites.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    We were, but not our hosting providers. Because they were protected by the law. If what GP describes comes true, they won't be anymore.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    My point is that it wouldn't even be safe to run a comments section on a personal blog, as any comments would count as being published by the blog owner. Private, p2p communication would be fine, but anything publicly consumable would present a liability risk for libel, slander, etc. Where am I miscalculating?
WatchDog 3y ago
It's a valid concern. In Australia, our high court ruled that companies are liable for comments posted on their social media pages[0]. It's had massive chilling effects on the ability to engage in discourse. Comments sections are almost always disabled on content produced by Australian media corporations. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/08/high-court-rules-australian-media-companies-are-liable-for-defamatory-comments-posted-on-their-facebook-pages https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/08/high-court-rul...
asadotzler 3y ago
Fine by me. These site can all die in a ball of fire. We were fine before them when we all had our own sites and all too responsibility for what we said and hosted. Returning to that is not a problem for some of us who were around before Facebook and YouTube.
- notaustinpowers 3y ago
  I 100% agree with you that we should self-host more (and the surge in technologies like ActivityPub make me excited to think of what a future of self-hosted socials may bring). But that brings up another question: If I self-host my own site and my estranged conspiracy theorist uncle posts something I don't agree with on my site and I remove it, will these laws make me liable for infringing on his freedom of speech? To my knowledge, there is no definition of what social media is or what companies/people/sites/technologies do these laws apply to.

cuckatoo 3y ago

Do we need to protect the social media platforms? Do they even add value to society?

dingnuts 3y ago
I'm sure the spooks agree that information was a lot easier to control when it was just ABC, NBC, and CBS
notaustinpowers 3y ago
Do you think this would stop at the big boys like Facebook and Twitter? What about Reddit? If I post a story in r/AITAH that the other person discovers, this opens Reddit up to a possible libel lawsuit if the other person thinks I'm not being truthful. Do you think that's a risk that Reddit's legal department will let them take? I highly doubt it. Do you think unpaid volunteer mods want to be legally liable if they remove a post for violating guidelines? Let's go another level deeper, your neighborhood's Nextdoor forum. If Susan from down the road starts saying I slept with her husband to bad mouth me on the app, I could not just sue Susan for libel, but I can also include Nextdoor in the lawsuit. Do you think Nextdoor's legal team will allow that? Again, nope. But Nextdoor wouldn't be able to remove Susan's post because it would be "silencing her freedom of speech". So instead, Nextdoor takes the logical legal decision to completely remove any user-generated posts, effectively killing their product. And another level deeper, some random classic car forum with maybe 100 users per month. What do they do? I think you get the hint. This isn't just going to affect social media platforms. This will affect all platforms that allow users to post in any capacity, text, photos, videos, links, etc.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
simpletone 3y ago
> Do they even add value to society? Your presence here is your answer. Why are you here if social media doesn't provide any value? You'd have to be braindead to not understand the immense value social media has added to society. But like all things, social media has it's negative aspects. But just because social media isn't perfect, doesn't mean it has no value. As I said, your presence here is proof of that.
- tarxvf 3y ago
  I guess I'm braindead. Their presence here does not indicate they value their time here in a net-positive way. It offers no proof whatsoever. They could be addicted. FOMO could drive them to compulsively check the site. It might be their only social interaction at all during the workday. This might be the only group of people on the internet with similar interests. None of those things would necessarily make it a net-good thing, if it also has negative repercussions that outweight the benefits. Many drugs, legal and illegal, are fairly harmful. Sometimes the benefits are worth the negatives. Sometimes they are very firmly not. Much of the anti-social-media position is about social media being addicting and net-harmful. I personally don't see the immense value that you see. I've seen some value for some specific sites for some short, specific times. My grandma could interact with some of her grandkids for a short while on Facebook, for instance. Of course, she (or we) used to just pick up the phone, which is what happens now too. I've seen some cool projects on HN I'd otherwise likely never have seen. Otherwise I'm drawing a blank.
  - simpletone 3y ago
    > I guess I'm braindead. Lets see shall we. > None of those things would necessarily make it a net-good thing Who is talking 'net' here? The commenter simply questioned whether social media added any value to society. To deny social media has provided any value to society is as braindead as denying that fossil fuels added value to society. Now whether the negatives outweight the positives ( aka net value ) is an entirely different question. > My grandma could interact with some of her grandkids for a short while on Facebook, for instance. Of course, she (or we) used to just pick up the phone, which is what happens now too. I've seen some cool projects on HN I'd otherwise likely never have seen. Oh so it does provide value. So you are agreeing with me then? > Otherwise I'm drawing a blank. You aren't braindead. You are disingenuous. So you never asked for or search for information on reddit, hn, stackoverflow, etc. You never found solutions to problems on tiktok, youtube, etc? You don't know anyone who found a job via hn, linkedin, etc? Bought or sold stuff on facebook, etc? If you believe that the negatives of social media outweigh the positives of social media, then fine. That's your opinion. But to cavalierly dismiss or deny that social media provides value to society is being disingenuous at best or braindead at worst. Or more likely agenda driven nonsense. Your comment reminds me of this excellent monty python clip: What have the romans done for us? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ

lgleason 3y ago

This is why we can't have nice things. The social media platforms took things too far. Most republicans would be in favor of the platforms not being liable for content if they don't censor. Most and both political sides would probably also agree that they should be taking steps to protect minors from child predators etc., and that was the intent behind 230 protections. The social media platforms took 230 beyond what is was initially intended for as a premise to weaponize it against people who's politics they don't agree with. Obviously with that kinds of a loophole 230 was not well thought out from that regard and would need a re-write.

nobody9999 3y ago
>The social media platforms took 230 beyond what is was initially intended for as a premise to weaponize it against people who's politics they don't agree with. So what? And I mean that quite seriously. To clarify, I despise the big social media platforms and refuse to use them even if that inconveniences me (and occasionally it does). At the same time, those platforms have the same free speech rights that I do, and curtailment of their free speech (and property) rights (in this case, the right not to publish/amplify the speech of others) also curtails my free speech (and property) rights. And since I want to protect my own rights, I support the right of those rapacious scumbags to moderate/censor on their own private property.
- ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
  If platforms are going to be editors then they don't need section 230 protection.
- someuser2345 3y ago
  You're right, these companies do have the right to censor speech that they disagree with. However, if they do that, then they are responsible for any speech that they do not censor. So for instance, if someone posts a libelous statement on Reddit, and Reddit doesn't remove that statement, then victim of libel should be allowed to sue Reddit directly, instead of just suing whoever made that post.

vik0 3y ago

>to make social media itself inhospitable I see nothing wrong with that. Social media has done nothing but harm its users, and people that know its users (or: everybody)

halfmatthalfcat 3y ago
> Social media has done nothing but harm its users Nothing? I don't think it's that cut and dry. While there has been harm, no doubt, there has been a lot of positives too (maintaining connections, thoughtful conversations, etc).
NavinF 3y ago
Then why did you write this comment on HN (an example of social media)?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
carlosjobim 3y ago
Then why are you writing here on this social media and harming people? Social media is such a big part of modern communications, that arguing against it is like arguing against telephone lines or the printing press. There's a lot to criticise the owner companies for, including how social media can harm people and infamously promote and accelerate genocide, such as Facebook is accused of having done in Myanmar. But the same accusations can be levied against any means of communication and publishing technology.
notaustinpowers 3y ago
Thanks for your comment here on the social media site, Hacker News! I think we have to reorient ourselves on what counts as social media. It's not just Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. It's forums like Hacker News, it's comment sections on your favorite blogs you frequent. It's the products available on Etsy or a small creator's personal Shopify store. Free speech isn't just about photos and text, it covers all forms of expression.

tekla 3y ago

Why single out Republicans? The Democrats hate Section 230 as much as the republicans.

michaelt 3y ago
The Florida and Texas laws were both passed by Republican legislatures. And Biden and Obama have not yet been banned by Twitter.
- int_19h 3y ago
  And yet GP is broadly correct: “The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms. It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.” - Joe Biden https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/08/white-house-renews-call-to-remove-section-230-liability-shield-00055771 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/08/white-house-renews-... https://slate.com/technology/2021/03/section-230-reform-legislative-tracker.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/03/section-230-reform-legi...
DinoDad13 3y ago
what?

DoodahMan 3y ago

i share your tinfoilery: the goal is to erode public discourse on the internet, censorship (self or otherwise), and so on.

hellojesus 3y ago

> My concern, ultimately, is what's going to happen when these laws are introduced and a republican congress continues to pursue a rejection of Section 230? It's not a mystery. Look what happened when sesta/fosta became law. Craigslist had to dump their entire personal section for fear they miss a single ill intentioned post. The consequence of 230 removal is only to destroy the ability for people to interact with one another publicly online unless one of them (or the platform) is willing to take on liability for the interaction.

asadotzler 3y ago
that's bullshit, we don't need platforms to interact online, we were doing that fine before myspace and facebook and perhaps you're too young to remember that but it worked pretty well and we were all on the hook for what we hosted on our sites.
- int_19h 3y ago
  We were, but not our hosting providers. Because they were protected by the law. If what GP describes comes true, they won't be anymore.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  My point is that it wouldn't even be safe to run a comments section on a personal blog, as any comments would count as being published by the blog owner. Private, p2p communication would be fine, but anything publicly consumable would present a liability risk for libel, slander, etc. Where am I miscalculating?

WatchDog 3y ago

It's a valid concern. In Australia, our high court ruled that companies are liable for comments posted on their social media pages[0]. It's had massive chilling effects on the ability to engage in discourse. Comments sections are almost always disabled on content produced by Australian media corporations. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/08/high-court-rules-australian-media-companies-are-liable-for-defamatory-comments-posted-on-their-facebook-pages https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/08/high-court-rul...

asadotzler 3y ago

Fine by me. These site can all die in a ball of fire. We were fine before them when we all had our own sites and all too responsibility for what we said and hosted. Returning to that is not a problem for some of us who were around before Facebook and YouTube.

notaustinpowers 3y ago
I 100% agree with you that we should self-host more (and the surge in technologies like ActivityPub make me excited to think of what a future of self-hosted socials may bring). But that brings up another question: If I self-host my own site and my estranged conspiracy theorist uncle posts something I don't agree with on my site and I remove it, will these laws make me liable for infringing on his freedom of speech? To my knowledge, there is no definition of what social media is or what companies/people/sites/technologies do these laws apply to.