3 ms·

I don't think it's actually that easy. In the US, we have Section 230[1], which says > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated

by toast0 2y ago

I don't think it's actually that easy. In the US, we have Section 230[1], which says > 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. Seems to me, that says if you have a problem with the advertisement, you need to go to the source, not the ad network. You're proposing an exception for advertisement, which is reasonable, but you've got to define advertisement. It's not just money for distribution; I'm not an advertiser just because I pay to use a forum, which is money for distribution. Section 230 isn't some immutable force, so yes, political force is all that's needed, but it's been the norm since 1996, and has been enabling ad networks to show ads without regard to their content since 1997 [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 [2] https://www.eff.org/files/zeran-v-aol.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/zeran-v-aol.pdf

Nextgrid 2y ago
Section 230 was drafted at a time where algorithmic (and/or ML-driven) curation of content (whether ads or actual content) wasn't a thing. If you use algorithms to selectively choose which content the user gets exposed to (in an objective to increase your profits obviously), this is literally the definition of a publisher. We are way past the "we just provide a dumb pipe for content between publishers and users". The pipe is no longer dumb and hasn't been for over a decade.
anigbrowl 2y ago
So just rewrite or repeal it. If we make social network and UGC companies common carriers, then they'll be subject to different kinds of regulation, too bad. Right now they are having their cake and eating it, to the general detriment.
stevenicr 2y ago
fwiw - https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/07/30/seante-kosa-passes-kids-online-privacy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/07/30/seante-... This has a good chance of being the additional cracks in 203 that bring the whole thing down imho. The cracks were created years ago when fb and ggle did a 180 on the sopa / pipa censorship.. I knew then that the cracks would only get bigger.. A fediverse will be more and more used in the future I feel, maybe not by the masses of grandmas but certainly as more is censored in main portals people will nose around elsewhere.
galdosdi 2y ago
> Section 230 isn't some immutable force, so yes, political force is all that's needed, Exactly. Glad you agree. It's just an act of congress. We pass many every year, including far bigger ones. > you've got to define advertisement. I did in my post. I'll repeat myself for you: (1) the platform is profiting from it (2) the platform is pushing and selecting the content to the user at the platform's whim, not the user's request. Seems reasonable to me but these details can be worked out if the political will for the big picture change ever actually appears. My definition would allow the main thrust of Section 230 to remain intact. Section 230 was, in my view, most nobly intended for cases like ISPs hosting content, such as GeoCities or Cloudflare or Google Sites. This is content that the end user specifically seeks and requests. Ads as well as algorithmically recommended content don't meet this test. If I go to criminalhatespeech.com on purpose, that's on me. If TikTok advertises criminalhatespeech.com to me or puts it in my For You for whatever reason they think it'll engage me, that's on them. Simple, isn't it? All we're doing is putting humans and robots on an even footing instead of priviliging robots over humans as the current law does (never thought I'd type that sentence someday, but it's basically true-- the platforms are getting away with doing things they could not get away with if the code was being "executed" by "hand" by humans with flow charts instead of automated with CPUs and network cards.)
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  That's a workable definition at least, but what you're proposing is effectively a nationwide ban on algorithmically recommended content. Or is that your whole point?
  - galdosdi 2y ago
    You've misunderstood me. I am happy to clarify. The only algorithmic content that would be eliminated is that which is already illegal speech and/or that which is too valueless to be worth spending the approximately $2 of time it costs for someone to look over a 10 second video and sign off that it's OK. Who pays that can be decided by the market, but probably the poster could pay it and if they choose not to, the platform will algorithmically decide which "free" content seems worth moderating at the platform's expense. I'm literally just actually requiring a modicum of moderation, not banning anything. Or is it that you believe that the vast majority of the content on the platforms today is ultra low value and/or illegal content? Frankly, if you do believe that, that's even more damning for the platforms, isn't it? However, I don't actually believe that. Most content I see appears to be legal and appears to already have thousands of views before I see it. Algorithmic content is already mostly stuff that is popular enough that the tiny expense of vetting it wouldn't quash it. As for how a newbie gets their foot in the door, this actually makes it easier for them. Yes, now you might have to pay $2 to post your first video if you want any shot of anyone besides your friends seeing it -- but now you're only competing with others who were willing to do the same. All the ultra low effort AI generated videos suddenly become totally unviable. In fact, this generally biases a platform towards higher production effort content. If I spent 2 minutes concieving of and making a low effort video, posting it 4 minutes after having thought of the idea, shot it in one take and immediately publish it -- then $2 seems like a lot. But if I spent two days planning, shooting, editing, then suddenly $2 is nothing. This will make everything better and nothing worse except for bad actors who are parasites one our once wonderful internet ecosystem.
mrguyorama 2y ago
Section 230, if it's even remotely applicable to companies doing their own advertising on their own platforms, requires a "Good faith effort" to moderate that platform. If a court is willing to call the moderation google and facebook do currently in advertising "good faith", that court is flat out wrong.
- toast0 2y ago
  230 (c)(2) says [1]: > (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). Good faith is only required to limit civil liability in case of taking actions to restrict access. There's no good faith requirement for 230 (c) (1) which is where platforms get immunity for content from users. I don't believe the platforms are being accused of advertising their own drugs for sale; they're passing through drug advertisements from users (advertisers). [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
SissyphusXOXO 2y ago
Yeah, it's probably not going to be easy just because Section 230 is or at least was essential for the growth of the internet. Is it as important now? I'm not sure, but I wonder how essential it is for big companies like Google or Meta to have this sort of protection when they don't have as much competition to incentivize moderation and may have enough money to do better research on what content they're hosting.

by toast0 2y ago

Nextgrid 2y ago

Section 230 was drafted at a time where algorithmic (and/or ML-driven) curation of content (whether ads or actual content) wasn't a thing. If you use algorithms to selectively choose which content the user gets exposed to (in an objective to increase your profits obviously), this is literally the definition of a publisher. We are way past the "we just provide a dumb pipe for content between publishers and users". The pipe is no longer dumb and hasn't been for over a decade.

anigbrowl 2y ago

So just rewrite or repeal it. If we make social network and UGC companies common carriers, then they'll be subject to different kinds of regulation, too bad. Right now they are having their cake and eating it, to the general detriment.

stevenicr 2y ago

fwiw - https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/07/30/seante-kosa-passes-kids-online-privacy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/07/30/seante-... This has a good chance of being the additional cracks in 203 that bring the whole thing down imho. The cracks were created years ago when fb and ggle did a 180 on the sopa / pipa censorship.. I knew then that the cracks would only get bigger.. A fediverse will be more and more used in the future I feel, maybe not by the masses of grandmas but certainly as more is censored in main portals people will nose around elsewhere.

galdosdi 2y ago

> Section 230 isn't some immutable force, so yes, political force is all that's needed, Exactly. Glad you agree. It's just an act of congress. We pass many every year, including far bigger ones. > you've got to define advertisement. I did in my post. I'll repeat myself for you: (1) the platform is profiting from it (2) the platform is pushing and selecting the content to the user at the platform's whim, not the user's request. Seems reasonable to me but these details can be worked out if the political will for the big picture change ever actually appears. My definition would allow the main thrust of Section 230 to remain intact. Section 230 was, in my view, most nobly intended for cases like ISPs hosting content, such as GeoCities or Cloudflare or Google Sites. This is content that the end user specifically seeks and requests. Ads as well as algorithmically recommended content don't meet this test. If I go to criminalhatespeech.com on purpose, that's on me. If TikTok advertises criminalhatespeech.com to me or puts it in my For You for whatever reason they think it'll engage me, that's on them. Simple, isn't it? All we're doing is putting humans and robots on an even footing instead of priviliging robots over humans as the current law does (never thought I'd type that sentence someday, but it's basically true-- the platforms are getting away with doing things they could not get away with if the code was being "executed" by "hand" by humans with flow charts instead of automated with CPUs and network cards.)

Ajedi32 2y ago
That's a workable definition at least, but what you're proposing is effectively a nationwide ban on algorithmically recommended content. Or is that your whole point?
- galdosdi 2y ago
  You've misunderstood me. I am happy to clarify. The only algorithmic content that would be eliminated is that which is already illegal speech and/or that which is too valueless to be worth spending the approximately $2 of time it costs for someone to look over a 10 second video and sign off that it's OK. Who pays that can be decided by the market, but probably the poster could pay it and if they choose not to, the platform will algorithmically decide which "free" content seems worth moderating at the platform's expense. I'm literally just actually requiring a modicum of moderation, not banning anything. Or is it that you believe that the vast majority of the content on the platforms today is ultra low value and/or illegal content? Frankly, if you do believe that, that's even more damning for the platforms, isn't it? However, I don't actually believe that. Most content I see appears to be legal and appears to already have thousands of views before I see it. Algorithmic content is already mostly stuff that is popular enough that the tiny expense of vetting it wouldn't quash it. As for how a newbie gets their foot in the door, this actually makes it easier for them. Yes, now you might have to pay $2 to post your first video if you want any shot of anyone besides your friends seeing it -- but now you're only competing with others who were willing to do the same. All the ultra low effort AI generated videos suddenly become totally unviable. In fact, this generally biases a platform towards higher production effort content. If I spent 2 minutes concieving of and making a low effort video, posting it 4 minutes after having thought of the idea, shot it in one take and immediately publish it -- then $2 seems like a lot. But if I spent two days planning, shooting, editing, then suddenly $2 is nothing. This will make everything better and nothing worse except for bad actors who are parasites one our once wonderful internet ecosystem.

mrguyorama 2y ago

Section 230, if it's even remotely applicable to companies doing their own advertising on their own platforms, requires a "Good faith effort" to moderate that platform. If a court is willing to call the moderation google and facebook do currently in advertising "good faith", that court is flat out wrong.

toast0 2y ago
230 (c)(2) says [1]: > (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). Good faith is only required to limit civil liability in case of taking actions to restrict access. There's no good faith requirement for 230 (c) (1) which is where platforms get immunity for content from users. I don't believe the platforms are being accused of advertising their own drugs for sale; they're passing through drug advertisements from users (advertisers). [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

SissyphusXOXO 2y ago

Yeah, it's probably not going to be easy just because Section 230 is or at least was essential for the growth of the internet. Is it as important now? I'm not sure, but I wonder how essential it is for big companies like Google or Meta to have this sort of protection when they don't have as much competition to incentivize moderation and may have enough money to do better research on what content they're hosting.