5 ms·

This could result in the total destruction of social media sites. Facebook, TikTok, Youtube, Twitter, hell even Linkedin cannot possibly survive if they have to

This could result in the total destruction of social media sites. Facebook, TikTok, Youtube, Twitter, hell even Linkedin cannot possibly survive if they have to take responsibility for what users post. Excellent news, frankly.

darig 2y ago
[dead]
thephyber 2y ago
I don’t understand how people can be so confident that this will only lead to good things. First, this seems like courts directly overruling the explicit wishes of Congress. As much as Congress critters complain about DCA Sec230, they can’t agree on any improvements. Judges throwing a wrench at it won’t improve it, they will only cause more uncertainty. not liking what social media has done to people doesn’t seem like a good reason to potentially destroy the entire corpus of videos created on YouTube.
- gizmo686 2y ago
  Congress did not anticipate the type of algorithmic curation that the modern internet is built on. At the time, if you were to hire someone to create a daily list of suggested reading, that list would not be subject to 230 protections. However, with the rise of algorithmic media, that is precisely what modern social media companies have been doing.
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    Congress has had ample opportunity to pass changes since the rise of algorithmic feeds too though and they haven't done so.
  - thephyber 2y ago
    I can make a decent argument that even offering a basic “sort by” dropdown, where the platform sets a _default_ sort, classifies it as an “algorithm”. I’m arguing that judges shouldn’t be tearing down the existing legal regime without someone actively planning for a replacement that doesn’t have massive _unintended consequences_ (which all of the proposed Sec 230 reforms have) And the fact that you only mentioned “modern social media companies” means that you are also underestimating which offerings qualify. Sec 230 protects all websites and apps that show _any_ user content to other users, not just the large social media companies. Think review sites, online classifieds, your group chat in a Messenger app, blog comments, social recipe sites, shared bookmarking sites, the “memo” field of transactions in every blockchain, etc. And the obvious worry I have is that new jurisprudence starts pulling Jenga pieces away from AI chatbots before Congress even decides whether those qualify as a platform, a publisher, or something completely different.
- Devasta 2y ago
  Well, if we consider the various social media sites: Meta - Helped facilitate multiple ethnic cleansings. Twitter - Now a site run by white supremacists for white supremacists. Youtube - Provides platforms to Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro and a whole constellation of conspiracy theorist nonsense. Reddit - Initially grew its userbase through hosting of softcore CP, one of the biggest pro-ana sites on the web and a myriad of smaller but no less vile subreddits. Even if they try to put on a respectable mask now its still a cesspit. Linkedin - Somehow has the least well adjusted userbase of them all, its destruction would do its users a kindness. My opinion of social media goes far and beyond what anyone could consider "not liking". In any case, it would mean that those videos would have to be self hosted and published, we'd see an en masse return of websites like college humor and cracked and the like, albeit without the comments switched on.
  - falcolas 2y ago
    YouTube and Facebook were also the original hosts of the Blackout trend videos and pictures, as I recall.
  - thephyber 2y ago
    Baby. Bath water. You are arguing that mega social media companies should not be immune from liability. I could care less about those companies, but I do care about the unintended consequences of this ruling. The mega social media companies weren’t immune from liability before the ruling. But they are mega corporations, with lots of attorneys on retainer who craft the ToS / EULA / other contracts to shed legal risk. Even this ruling isn’t likely to hurt them much in the long run. The “baby” is every small blog that allows comments, every store / product review, every social bookmarking site, every game with multi-player chat, etc. These are examples of features available because of Sec230 protections. If some enterprising attorney can spin the _default sort order_ into a statistically significant harm to their plaintiff, every single website/app just became a far bigger target for litigation. And even if they can’t, now every mom and pop website will have to pay an attorney to find out if the plaintiff has a case according to this new vague standard. And this happened because of a judge / jurisprudence, not because of a lawmaking body who solicited feedback from both companies and consumers. This ruling is likely to stand no matter the legal / / social economic fallout. Craigslist already lost the Personals section to Sec230-modifying legislation. That was a drop in the bucket compared to what we could lose from this ruling.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  No, 230 is not overturned. The original video is still the original poster's comment, and thus still 230 protected. If the kid searched specifically for the video and found it, TikTok would have been safe. However, TikTok's decision to show the video to the child is TikTok's speech, and TikTok is liable for that decision. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41392710 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41392710
  - falcolas 2y ago
    If the child hears the term "blackout" and searches for it on TikTok and reaches the same video, is that TikTok's speech - fault - as well? TikTok used an algorithm to sort search results, after all.
    - preciousoo 2y ago
      I think the third sentence of the comment you’re replying to answers that
      - falcolas 2y ago
        So you believe that presenting the results (especially if you filter on something like 'relevance') of a search now makes the website liable? That's going to be hell for Google. Well, maybe not, they have many and decent lawyers.
        preciousoo 2y ago
        I’m not sure you read the sentence in question correctly
        falcolas 2y ago
        > However, TikTok's decision to show the video to the child is TikTok's speech, and TikTok is liable for that decision. How is my interpretation incorrect, please? TikTok (or any other website like Google) can show a video to a child in any number of ways - all of which could be considered to be their speech.
- karaterobot 2y ago
  The person you're responding to didn't say they were confident about anything, they said (cynically, it seems to me) that it could lead to the end of many social media sites, and that'd be a good thing in their opinion. This is a pedantic thing to point out, but I do it because the comment has been downvoted, and the top response to it seems to misunderstand it, so it's possible others did too.
  - thephyber 2y ago
    I’m pretty sure I didn’t misunderstand the parent comment. I just didn’t choose to address only that comment in my reply — I spun my reply in the context of all of the previous discussions about Sec230 reform — because that’s the underlying worry that I have. I could care less if the biggest social media companies die off, but I _do_ worry about all of the other unintended consequences of this ruling (more accurately, changing the definition of “speech” to include something that is so far removed from direct and intentional).
Mistletoe 2y ago
The return of the self hosted blog type internet where we go to more than 7 websites? One can dream. Where someone needs an IQ over 70 to post every thought in their head to the universe? Yes that’s a world I’d love to return to.
- falcolas 2y ago
  Nah, ISPs (and webhosts) are protected by Section 230 as well, and they're likely to drift into the lawyer's sights as well - intentionally or unintentionally.
- krapp 2y ago
  >Where someone needs an IQ over 70 to post every thought in their head to the universe? Yes that’s a world I’d love to return to. I remember the internet pre social media but I don't exactly remember it being filled with the sparkling wit of genius. The internet is supposed to belong to everyone, it wasn't meant to be a playground only for a few nerds. It's really sad that hacker culture has gotten this angry and elitist. It means no one will ever create anything with as much egalitarian potential as the internet again.
bentley 2y ago
But it’s more likely to go the other way around: the big sites with their expensive legal teams will learn how to thread the needle to remain compliant with the law, probably by oppressively moderating and restricting user content even more than they already do, while hosting independent sites and forums with any sort of user‐submitted content will become completely untenable due to the hammer of liability.
WCSTombs 2y ago
There's nothing in the article about making the social media sites liable for what their users post. However, they're made liable for how they recommend content to their users, at least in certain cases.
krapp 2y ago
Negative externalities aside, social media has been the most revolutionary and transformative paradigm shift in mass communication and culture since possibly the invention of the telegraph. Yes something that provides real value to many people would be lost if all of that were torn asunder.
- skydhash 2y ago
  You're missing radio and TV. Social media is mostly giving everyone a megaphone and the platform the one in control of the volume.
mikewarot 2y ago
What is likely to happen is that Government will lean on "friendly" platforms that cooperate in order to do political things that should be illegal, in exchange for looking the other way on things the government should stop. This is the conclusion I came to after watching Bryan Lunduke's reporting on the recent telegram arrest.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wm-Vv1kRk8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wm-Vv1kRk8

darig 2y ago

[dead]

thephyber 2y ago

I don’t understand how people can be so confident that this will only lead to good things. First, this seems like courts directly overruling the explicit wishes of Congress. As much as Congress critters complain about DCA Sec230, they can’t agree on any improvements. Judges throwing a wrench at it won’t improve it, they will only cause more uncertainty. not liking what social media has done to people doesn’t seem like a good reason to potentially destroy the entire corpus of videos created on YouTube.

gizmo686 2y ago
Congress did not anticipate the type of algorithmic curation that the modern internet is built on. At the time, if you were to hire someone to create a daily list of suggested reading, that list would not be subject to 230 protections. However, with the rise of algorithmic media, that is precisely what modern social media companies have been doing.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  Congress has had ample opportunity to pass changes since the rise of algorithmic feeds too though and they haven't done so.
- thephyber 2y ago
  I can make a decent argument that even offering a basic “sort by” dropdown, where the platform sets a _default_ sort, classifies it as an “algorithm”. I’m arguing that judges shouldn’t be tearing down the existing legal regime without someone actively planning for a replacement that doesn’t have massive _unintended consequences_ (which all of the proposed Sec 230 reforms have) And the fact that you only mentioned “modern social media companies” means that you are also underestimating which offerings qualify. Sec 230 protects all websites and apps that show _any_ user content to other users, not just the large social media companies. Think review sites, online classifieds, your group chat in a Messenger app, blog comments, social recipe sites, shared bookmarking sites, the “memo” field of transactions in every blockchain, etc. And the obvious worry I have is that new jurisprudence starts pulling Jenga pieces away from AI chatbots before Congress even decides whether those qualify as a platform, a publisher, or something completely different.
Devasta 2y ago
Well, if we consider the various social media sites: Meta - Helped facilitate multiple ethnic cleansings. Twitter - Now a site run by white supremacists for white supremacists. Youtube - Provides platforms to Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro and a whole constellation of conspiracy theorist nonsense. Reddit - Initially grew its userbase through hosting of softcore CP, one of the biggest pro-ana sites on the web and a myriad of smaller but no less vile subreddits. Even if they try to put on a respectable mask now its still a cesspit. Linkedin - Somehow has the least well adjusted userbase of them all, its destruction would do its users a kindness. My opinion of social media goes far and beyond what anyone could consider "not liking". In any case, it would mean that those videos would have to be self hosted and published, we'd see an en masse return of websites like college humor and cracked and the like, albeit without the comments switched on.
- falcolas 2y ago
  YouTube and Facebook were also the original hosts of the Blackout trend videos and pictures, as I recall.
- thephyber 2y ago
  Baby. Bath water. You are arguing that mega social media companies should not be immune from liability. I could care less about those companies, but I do care about the unintended consequences of this ruling. The mega social media companies weren’t immune from liability before the ruling. But they are mega corporations, with lots of attorneys on retainer who craft the ToS / EULA / other contracts to shed legal risk. Even this ruling isn’t likely to hurt them much in the long run. The “baby” is every small blog that allows comments, every store / product review, every social bookmarking site, every game with multi-player chat, etc. These are examples of features available because of Sec230 protections. If some enterprising attorney can spin the _default sort order_ into a statistically significant harm to their plaintiff, every single website/app just became a far bigger target for litigation. And even if they can’t, now every mom and pop website will have to pay an attorney to find out if the plaintiff has a case according to this new vague standard. And this happened because of a judge / jurisprudence, not because of a lawmaking body who solicited feedback from both companies and consumers. This ruling is likely to stand no matter the legal / / social economic fallout. Craigslist already lost the Personals section to Sec230-modifying legislation. That was a drop in the bucket compared to what we could lose from this ruling.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
No, 230 is not overturned. The original video is still the original poster's comment, and thus still 230 protected. If the kid searched specifically for the video and found it, TikTok would have been safe. However, TikTok's decision to show the video to the child is TikTok's speech, and TikTok is liable for that decision. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41392710 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41392710
- falcolas 2y ago
  If the child hears the term "blackout" and searches for it on TikTok and reaches the same video, is that TikTok's speech - fault - as well? TikTok used an algorithm to sort search results, after all.
  - preciousoo 2y ago
    I think the third sentence of the comment you’re replying to answers that
    - falcolas 2y ago
      So you believe that presenting the results (especially if you filter on something like 'relevance') of a search now makes the website liable? That's going to be hell for Google. Well, maybe not, they have many and decent lawyers.
      - preciousoo 2y ago
        I’m not sure you read the sentence in question correctly
        falcolas 2y ago
        > However, TikTok's decision to show the video to the child is TikTok's speech, and TikTok is liable for that decision. How is my interpretation incorrect, please? TikTok (or any other website like Google) can show a video to a child in any number of ways - all of which could be considered to be their speech.
karaterobot 2y ago
The person you're responding to didn't say they were confident about anything, they said (cynically, it seems to me) that it could lead to the end of many social media sites, and that'd be a good thing in their opinion. This is a pedantic thing to point out, but I do it because the comment has been downvoted, and the top response to it seems to misunderstand it, so it's possible others did too.
- thephyber 2y ago
  I’m pretty sure I didn’t misunderstand the parent comment. I just didn’t choose to address only that comment in my reply — I spun my reply in the context of all of the previous discussions about Sec230 reform — because that’s the underlying worry that I have. I could care less if the biggest social media companies die off, but I _do_ worry about all of the other unintended consequences of this ruling (more accurately, changing the definition of “speech” to include something that is so far removed from direct and intentional).

Mistletoe 2y ago

The return of the self hosted blog type internet where we go to more than 7 websites? One can dream. Where someone needs an IQ over 70 to post every thought in their head to the universe? Yes that’s a world I’d love to return to.

falcolas 2y ago
Nah, ISPs (and webhosts) are protected by Section 230 as well, and they're likely to drift into the lawyer's sights as well - intentionally or unintentionally.
krapp 2y ago
>Where someone needs an IQ over 70 to post every thought in their head to the universe? Yes that’s a world I’d love to return to. I remember the internet pre social media but I don't exactly remember it being filled with the sparkling wit of genius. The internet is supposed to belong to everyone, it wasn't meant to be a playground only for a few nerds. It's really sad that hacker culture has gotten this angry and elitist. It means no one will ever create anything with as much egalitarian potential as the internet again.

bentley 2y ago

But it’s more likely to go the other way around: the big sites with their expensive legal teams will learn how to thread the needle to remain compliant with the law, probably by oppressively moderating and restricting user content even more than they already do, while hosting independent sites and forums with any sort of user‐submitted content will become completely untenable due to the hammer of liability.

WCSTombs 2y ago

There's nothing in the article about making the social media sites liable for what their users post. However, they're made liable for how they recommend content to their users, at least in certain cases.

krapp 2y ago

Negative externalities aside, social media has been the most revolutionary and transformative paradigm shift in mass communication and culture since possibly the invention of the telegraph. Yes something that provides real value to many people would be lost if all of that were torn asunder.

skydhash 2y ago
You're missing radio and TV. Social media is mostly giving everyone a megaphone and the platform the one in control of the volume.

mikewarot 2y ago

What is likely to happen is that Government will lean on "friendly" platforms that cooperate in order to do political things that should be illegal, in exchange for looking the other way on things the government should stop. This is the conclusion I came to after watching Bryan Lunduke's reporting on the recent telegram arrest.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wm-Vv1kRk8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wm-Vv1kRk8