4 ms·

I understand Doctorow's position here that completely sunsetting section 230 and making providers liable for content would immensely impact smaller communities

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.

stephen_g 2y ago
Yours is definitely the best take in the comments section (especially actually acknowledging the damage getting rid of Section 230 would do to smaller sites). I agree that I also don’t know what the answer is, but getting rid of Section 230 is definitely not the answer. The answer is in some other kind of regulation, and this push to kill 230 is madness and the people pushing it don’t understand what it would actually do!
cdoctorow 2y ago
Here's the thing: > 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. Disinformation is not illegal. Even if platforms had joint liability for disinformation, that liability is...zero. There is nothing in US law that prohibits disinformation. Rather, there is a Constitutional right to speak without state sanction, e.g. the First Amendment. Likewise: the vast majority of harassment (as in > 99.9%) does not rise to the level of illegal conduct, and where it does, the cases are fact intensive and the relief is almost certainly injunctive, which is to say, if you prove to a court that certain conduct is illegal harassment, the best you can hope for is that the judge will order the harasser to cease. Which is to say: the two kinds of content you worry about the platforms carrying, for which you think shared liability will present some remedy, are legal to carry and there is no liability, shared or otherwise, for hosting it. For avoidance of doubt, I am profoundly concerned about both harassment and disinformation... And also getting rid of CDA 230 will not create a legal obligation on the platforms to do anything about either.

stephen_g 2y ago

Yours is definitely the best take in the comments section (especially actually acknowledging the damage getting rid of Section 230 would do to smaller sites). I agree that I also don’t know what the answer is, but getting rid of Section 230 is definitely not the answer. The answer is in some other kind of regulation, and this push to kill 230 is madness and the people pushing it don’t understand what it would actually do!

cdoctorow 2y ago

Here's the thing: > 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. Disinformation is not illegal. Even if platforms had joint liability for disinformation, that liability is...zero. There is nothing in US law that prohibits disinformation. Rather, there is a Constitutional right to speak without state sanction, e.g. the First Amendment. Likewise: the vast majority of harassment (as in > 99.9%) does not rise to the level of illegal conduct, and where it does, the cases are fact intensive and the relief is almost certainly injunctive, which is to say, if you prove to a court that certain conduct is illegal harassment, the best you can hope for is that the judge will order the harasser to cease. Which is to say: the two kinds of content you worry about the platforms carrying, for which you think shared liability will present some remedy, are legal to carry and there is no liability, shared or otherwise, for hosting it. For avoidance of doubt, I am profoundly concerned about both harassment and disinformation... And also getting rid of CDA 230 will not create a legal obligation on the platforms to do anything about either.