5 ms·

Wanna Make Big Tech Monopolies Even Worse? Kill Section 230

21 points by nabla9 2y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
I love Doctorow but I strongly disagree with him and the EFF on this point. Wouldn't we just go back to algorithmic feeds being liable but dumb pipes not being liable?
- jmole 2y ago
  The part of Section 230 that is necessary is here: "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." Without this clause, the thinking goes, when you post on Facebook (i.e. when Facebook shows your content to others), you are posting as Facebook.
  - CPLX 2y ago
    Right. And the argument is that the minute Facebook actually reads your post and makes a decision about how much exposure it will get based on its content then it is Facebook posting things.
    - jmole 2y ago
      You could make the same argument about Google search, which is a decidedly more user-driven algorithm determining what you're seeing. Google can't and shouldn't be responsible for the factual accuracy of sites that it indexes and shows to users. Consider e.g. what happens when libelous content is indexed. AI generated content is a different story, and I would not expect a court to lean towards Section 230 protections for such content. But user generated content, or content index, scraped, or otherwise reproduced verbatim from real humans is a different story. If you want publishers penalized for revenue generation that comes from illegal content, then it seems appropriate to draft a law that requires attribution of said revenue to specific pieces of content, and the ability to use this in discovery.
    - timdev2 2y ago
      That thinking strikes me as "clear, simple, and wrong". (I appreciate that 230's bright-line rule may also be clear, simple and wrong) Consider defamation. Often, the difference between a defamatory and non-defamatory statement is truth. Expecting websites to distinguish true statements from false ones is a non-starter. Let's say my family has a horrible experience with a youth pastor. I post about it on facebook to warn people in my community. If my claims are false, they're almost certainly actionable defamation. If my claims are true, disallowing them to mitigate Facebook's potential liability is also bad, but not in a way that affects Facebook.
CPLX 2y ago
This argument is wrong. Matt Stoller has written extensively on this: https://www.economicliberties.us/press-release/icymi-scotus-considers-crucial-section-230-case-that-could-rollback-big-techs-immunity/ https://www.economicliberties.us/press-release/icymi-scotus-... In short, the law’s intent has been perverted. The idea that these providers are simply neutral carriers of content evaporates the minute they decide what you do and don’t see and how much of it.
- hn_acker 2y ago
  > In short, the law’s intent has been perverted. Probably not, if you ask the authors of the law [1]. > The idea that these providers are simply neutral carriers of content evaporates the minute they decide what you do and don’t see and how much of it. Even if a platform chooses to present itself as neutral and subsequently "fails" to be neutral, Section 230 doesn't make the platform any more liable for user-generated content than if the platform hadn't presented itself as neutral in the first place. [1] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-and-former-rep-cox-urge-supreme-court-to-uphold-precedent-on-section-230 https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-a...
- timdev2 2y ago
  The "idea that these providers are simply neutral carriers of content" is a false premise, isn't it? The piece you link is ... weird. First, it doesn't really describe the problem it's trying to solve. Then it presents some very vague policy prescriptions like "site[s] should be regulated by sector-specific rules that apply to that particular line of business".
  - CPLX 2y ago
    There’s probably better writing on this by Matt Stoller that’s just the first thing I found. A core premise of this argument is that 230 is bizzare exception to pretty clear core rules that we typically have on things like libel and product liability. There’s just absolutely no argument at this point that these platforms are fundamentally consequential commercial enterprises. The create products, and profit from them, and those products and and do hurt people and cause horrible effects, but this law designed to preserve free speech utterly insulates them from any consequences of their profit making enterprise. It’s just bizarre. Like the Washington Post can be sued for publishing content that’s harming people and wrong, but Google can’t? If my kids are exposed to pedophiles every time they go to Chuck E Cheese, and they know about it and don’t do anything I can sure as hell can sue them. But not if it happens on Instagram? Why?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
I understand Doctorow's position here that completely sunsetting section 230 and making providers liable for content would immensely impact smaller communities that don't have the resources to monitor stringently OR deal with the legal fallout if they fail to, and on that point, I agree that getting rid of it is incredibly bad for the reasons outlined in the post. However, and this is a big, big HOWEVER, it is simultaneously true that section 230 also immensely benefits those same massive network-effected tech monoliths and lets them profit IMMENSELY from the spread of truly harmful content. Misinformation about COVID being the most prescient and recent example for most people probably, propaganda from all sides that continues radicalization and polarization, and also tons of harassment campaigns arranged across sites and services too numerous to name, the most vile content you can think of in whatever stripe comes to mind for you, etc. etc., Section 230 prevents any of the websites that are caught distributing it from being held liable. And I cannot envision a situation where being held legally culpable for such material would not directly incentivize, and with ZEAL, those tech monoliths to get the shit under control. It's clear merely market share, advertiser dollars fleeing platforms, and public outcry has not been sufficient for many of these companies to stop such things. That being the case, while I understand the opinions expressed here and sympathize with many of them, and I too have a deep, nostalgic connection to the early weird Internet, I feel it's simply too costly to continue allowing the internet to remain as wild as it is. The corrosive effects of these things on both our society at large and people as individuals continue to unravel and be more and better studied, and while I would never say we need to ban the Internet and Social Media entirely, I think it's very safe to say something like this technology has operated unregulated for far too long. I would not be the person I am today without early unfettered access to an uncensored Internet, and I say that both as a blessing, and a curse. It gave me at once access to early technology that's turned into a prosperous career, while also afflicting me with a lifetime of mental scars of varying severity and intrusive thoughts of things I saw and cannot forget. I struggle to label this trauma, but it's certainly not a good thing I carry. I don't know exactly what the solution here is. I think there should be some level of deniability and good-faith "we didn't know this was an issue" that these providers should have. However I feel it's also important that we're able to with legal mechanisms, say for example that Instagram is knowingly profiting off of whatever harmful content, to such a degree where there is no plausible explanation for how they didn't know, and to turn that into a legal action. This isn't really my field, so I don't know how you necessarily do that. But if that's truly impossible (which I doubt) then I feel sunsetting section 230 is the only real path forward.
AlbertCory 2y ago
I'm receptive to a nuanced, intelligent take on the issue, but this isn't it. It's a one-sided partisan screed. > Instead, we want to focus on what we see as a glaring omission in the co-sponsor’s argument: how central Section 230 is to ensuring that every person can speak online. Again, this is a disingenuous argument in that it ignores the issue of the monopoly power of the biggest Big Tech. The distinction between "publisher" and "common carrier" has to be sharpened, and maybe (hear me out here) if a company is big enough that its acquisitions have to be scrutinized by the FTC for market-controlling power, then it's also tending to deserve "common carrier" treatment. Just a thought.
- nabla9 2y ago
  That's different issue. Getting rid of Kill Section 230 not sharpen distinction between between "publisher" and "common carrier", it removes it. Lets stay with "Kill Section 230" and it's consequences.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    It's not a different issue at all; it's the same issue. Kill 230 and Big Tech (or any tech) has to choose one or the other, that being the distinction before the Internet.
    - nabla9 2y ago
      >has to choose one or the other, There is no choice. Common carrier thing you suggest does not appear if Section 230 is removed. Big Tech would become publisher. They would permaban everything even slightly unconformable and be fine. Small forums would disappear. You can't run small forum if you can be sued.
      - AlbertCory 2y ago
        You're not thinking more than one move ahead. Big Tech being a publisher means that their user-generated content would drop to the level of "Letters to the Editor" in the NY Times. Thus their revenue would dry up, too, because all those teen-agers walking around staring at their phones are doing so because they or their friends or someone they admire has content on there. They're not looking at passive media.
jmole 2y ago
It seems like many people have a misunderstanding of section 230, or that it has anything at all to do with "neutrality" or "common carriers". The text of the most relevant section, (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material, is below, and the full text is available here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker: 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. (2)Civil liability : No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1] If you squint at paragraph B, this is actually a reasonable loophole for adblocking, if you consider behavioral advertising to be objectionable.

21 points by nabla9 2y ago

I love Doctorow but I strongly disagree with him and the EFF on this point. Wouldn't we just go back to algorithmic feeds being liable but dumb pipes not being liable?

jmole 2y ago
The part of Section 230 that is necessary is here: "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." Without this clause, the thinking goes, when you post on Facebook (i.e. when Facebook shows your content to others), you are posting as Facebook.
- CPLX 2y ago
  Right. And the argument is that the minute Facebook actually reads your post and makes a decision about how much exposure it will get based on its content then it is Facebook posting things.
  - jmole 2y ago
    You could make the same argument about Google search, which is a decidedly more user-driven algorithm determining what you're seeing. Google can't and shouldn't be responsible for the factual accuracy of sites that it indexes and shows to users. Consider e.g. what happens when libelous content is indexed. AI generated content is a different story, and I would not expect a court to lean towards Section 230 protections for such content. But user generated content, or content index, scraped, or otherwise reproduced verbatim from real humans is a different story. If you want publishers penalized for revenue generation that comes from illegal content, then it seems appropriate to draft a law that requires attribution of said revenue to specific pieces of content, and the ability to use this in discovery.
  - timdev2 2y ago
    That thinking strikes me as "clear, simple, and wrong". (I appreciate that 230's bright-line rule may also be clear, simple and wrong) Consider defamation. Often, the difference between a defamatory and non-defamatory statement is truth. Expecting websites to distinguish true statements from false ones is a non-starter. Let's say my family has a horrible experience with a youth pastor. I post about it on facebook to warn people in my community. If my claims are false, they're almost certainly actionable defamation. If my claims are true, disallowing them to mitigate Facebook's potential liability is also bad, but not in a way that affects Facebook.

CPLX 2y ago

This argument is wrong. Matt Stoller has written extensively on this: https://www.economicliberties.us/press-release/icymi-scotus-considers-crucial-section-230-case-that-could-rollback-big-techs-immunity/ https://www.economicliberties.us/press-release/icymi-scotus-... In short, the law’s intent has been perverted. The idea that these providers are simply neutral carriers of content evaporates the minute they decide what you do and don’t see and how much of it.

hn_acker 2y ago
> In short, the law’s intent has been perverted. Probably not, if you ask the authors of the law [1]. > The idea that these providers are simply neutral carriers of content evaporates the minute they decide what you do and don’t see and how much of it. Even if a platform chooses to present itself as neutral and subsequently "fails" to be neutral, Section 230 doesn't make the platform any more liable for user-generated content than if the platform hadn't presented itself as neutral in the first place. [1] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-and-former-rep-cox-urge-supreme-court-to-uphold-precedent-on-section-230 https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-a...
timdev2 2y ago
The "idea that these providers are simply neutral carriers of content" is a false premise, isn't it? The piece you link is ... weird. First, it doesn't really describe the problem it's trying to solve. Then it presents some very vague policy prescriptions like "site[s] should be regulated by sector-specific rules that apply to that particular line of business".
- CPLX 2y ago
  There’s probably better writing on this by Matt Stoller that’s just the first thing I found. A core premise of this argument is that 230 is bizzare exception to pretty clear core rules that we typically have on things like libel and product liability. There’s just absolutely no argument at this point that these platforms are fundamentally consequential commercial enterprises. The create products, and profit from them, and those products and and do hurt people and cause horrible effects, but this law designed to preserve free speech utterly insulates them from any consequences of their profit making enterprise. It’s just bizarre. Like the Washington Post can be sued for publishing content that’s harming people and wrong, but Google can’t? If my kids are exposed to pedophiles every time they go to Chuck E Cheese, and they know about it and don’t do anything I can sure as hell can sue them. But not if it happens on Instagram? Why?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

I understand Doctorow's position here that completely sunsetting section 230 and making providers liable for content would immensely impact smaller communities that don't have the resources to monitor stringently OR deal with the legal fallout if they fail to, and on that point, I agree that getting rid of it is incredibly bad for the reasons outlined in the post. However, and this is a big, big HOWEVER, it is simultaneously true that section 230 also immensely benefits those same massive network-effected tech monoliths and lets them profit IMMENSELY from the spread of truly harmful content. Misinformation about COVID being the most prescient and recent example for most people probably, propaganda from all sides that continues radicalization and polarization, and also tons of harassment campaigns arranged across sites and services too numerous to name, the most vile content you can think of in whatever stripe comes to mind for you, etc. etc., Section 230 prevents any of the websites that are caught distributing it from being held liable. And I cannot envision a situation where being held legally culpable for such material would not directly incentivize, and with ZEAL, those tech monoliths to get the shit under control. It's clear merely market share, advertiser dollars fleeing platforms, and public outcry has not been sufficient for many of these companies to stop such things. That being the case, while I understand the opinions expressed here and sympathize with many of them, and I too have a deep, nostalgic connection to the early weird Internet, I feel it's simply too costly to continue allowing the internet to remain as wild as it is. The corrosive effects of these things on both our society at large and people as individuals continue to unravel and be more and better studied, and while I would never say we need to ban the Internet and Social Media entirely, I think it's very safe to say something like this technology has operated unregulated for far too long. I would not be the person I am today without early unfettered access to an uncensored Internet, and I say that both as a blessing, and a curse. It gave me at once access to early technology that's turned into a prosperous career, while also afflicting me with a lifetime of mental scars of varying severity and intrusive thoughts of things I saw and cannot forget. I struggle to label this trauma, but it's certainly not a good thing I carry. I don't know exactly what the solution here is. I think there should be some level of deniability and good-faith "we didn't know this was an issue" that these providers should have. However I feel it's also important that we're able to with legal mechanisms, say for example that Instagram is knowingly profiting off of whatever harmful content, to such a degree where there is no plausible explanation for how they didn't know, and to turn that into a legal action. This isn't really my field, so I don't know how you necessarily do that. But if that's truly impossible (which I doubt) then I feel sunsetting section 230 is the only real path forward.

AlbertCory 2y ago

I'm receptive to a nuanced, intelligent take on the issue, but this isn't it. It's a one-sided partisan screed. > Instead, we want to focus on what we see as a glaring omission in the co-sponsor’s argument: how central Section 230 is to ensuring that every person can speak online. Again, this is a disingenuous argument in that it ignores the issue of the monopoly power of the biggest Big Tech. The distinction between "publisher" and "common carrier" has to be sharpened, and maybe (hear me out here) if a company is big enough that its acquisitions have to be scrutinized by the FTC for market-controlling power, then it's also tending to deserve "common carrier" treatment. Just a thought.

nabla9 2y ago
That's different issue. Getting rid of Kill Section 230 not sharpen distinction between between "publisher" and "common carrier", it removes it. Lets stay with "Kill Section 230" and it's consequences.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  It's not a different issue at all; it's the same issue. Kill 230 and Big Tech (or any tech) has to choose one or the other, that being the distinction before the Internet.
  - nabla9 2y ago
    >has to choose one or the other, There is no choice. Common carrier thing you suggest does not appear if Section 230 is removed. Big Tech would become publisher. They would permaban everything even slightly unconformable and be fine. Small forums would disappear. You can't run small forum if you can be sued.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      You're not thinking more than one move ahead. Big Tech being a publisher means that their user-generated content would drop to the level of "Letters to the Editor" in the NY Times. Thus their revenue would dry up, too, because all those teen-agers walking around staring at their phones are doing so because they or their friends or someone they admire has content on there. They're not looking at passive media.

jmole 2y ago

It seems like many people have a misunderstanding of section 230, or that it has anything at all to do with "neutrality" or "common carriers". The text of the most relevant section, (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material, is below, and the full text is available here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker: 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. (2)Civil liability : No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1] If you squint at paragraph B, this is actually a reasonable loophole for adblocking, if you consider behavioral advertising to be objectionable.