3 ms·

This argument is wrong. Matt Stoller has written extensively on this: https://www.economicliberties.us/press-release/icymi-scotus-considers-crucial-section-23

by 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?
  - jmole 2y ago
    Any article published by the Washington Post is written by agents of their company, and that's why they are the responsible entity. Should you be able to sue every newsstand in your local city if they are selling a newspaper that defames you? After all, those newsstands are profiting from the sale of libelous content...

by CPLX 2y ago

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?
- jmole 2y ago
  Any article published by the Washington Post is written by agents of their company, and that's why they are the responsible entity. Should you be able to sue every newsstand in your local city if they are selling a newspaper that defames you? After all, those newsstands are profiting from the sale of libelous content...