11 ms·

I don't like Section 230 because "actual knowledge" no longer matters, as tech companies willfully blind themselves to the activities on their platforms. ~~As

by jjmarr 2y ago

I don't like Section 230 because "actual knowledge" no longer matters, as tech companies willfully blind themselves to the activities on their platforms. ~~As an example, there are subreddits like /r/therewasanattempt or /r/interestingasfuck that ban users that post in /r/judaism or /r/israel (there used to be a subreddit /r/bannedforbeingjewish that tracked this but that was banned by reddit admins). This isn't the First Amendment, since it's just a ban based on identity instead of posting content. According to the US legal system, discrimination based on religion is wrong. I should be able to fix this by complaining to reddit and creating actual knowledge of discrimination. In practice, because there is no contact mechanism for reddit, it's impossible for me to create actual knowledge.~~ edit: I still believe the above behaviour is morally wrong, but it isn't an accurate example of the actual knowledge standard as others have pointed out. I'm leaving it here for context on the follow-up comments. The TechDirt article doesn't engage with this. It asserts that: >> Section 230 now has been used to shield tech from consequences for facilitating deadly drug sales, sexual harassment, illegal arms sales and human trafficking. And in the meantime, the companies grew to be some of the most valuable in the world. > None of those cases would have succeeded under the First Amendment, again because the companies had no actual knowledge of the underlying issues, and thus could not be held liable. However, if you try to use Facebook's defamation form[1] and list the United States as an option: > Facebook is not in a position to adjudicate the truth or falsity of statements made by third parties, and consistent with Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, is not responsible for those statements. As a result, we are not liable to act on the content you want to report. If you believe content on Facebook violates our Community Standards (e.g., bullying, harassment, hate speech), please visit the Help Center to learn more about how to report it to us. [1]https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/430253071144967 https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/430253071144967

criley2 2y ago
I'm not sure where you learned that the US legal system is against religious discrimination in private organizations, but it's not strictly true. Many religious organizations in the US openly discriminate against people who are not their religion, from christian charities and businesses requiring staff to sign contracts that state they agree with/are members of the religion, to catholic hospitals openly discriminating against non-catholics based on their own "religious freedom to deny care". One way they can do this is an exemption to discrimination called bona fide occupational qualification suggesting that only certain people can do the job. In a more broad sense, any private organization with limited membership (signing up vs allowing everyone) can discriminate. For example some country clubs discriminate based on race to this day. One reason for this is that the constitution guarantees "Freedom of Association" which includes the ability to have selective membership.
- jjmarr 2y ago
  It's on a state-by-state basis.[1] In California in particular, courts have ruled online businesses that are public accommodations cannot discriminate:[2] > The California Supreme Court held that entering into an agreement with an online business is not necessary to establish standing under the Unruh Act. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Liu emphasized that “a person suffers discrimination under the Act when the person presents himself or herself to a business with an intent to use its services but encounters an exclusionary policy or practice that prevents him or her from using those services,” and that “visiting a website with intent to use its services is, for purposes of standing, equivalent to presenting oneself for services at a brick-and-mortar store.” I'm not sure what Catholic hospitals refuse non-Catholics care. My understanding is they refuse to provide medical treatments such as abortion that go against Catholic moral teachings, and this refusal is applied to everyone. [1] https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Online-Public-Accommodations-Report.pdf https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Onli... [2] https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/white-v-square/ https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/white-v-square/
  - ideashower 2y ago
    > In California in particular, courts have ruled online businesses that are public accommodations cannot discriminate. Yes. But there is a legal distinction between a business website that offers goods/services to the public (like an online store), and a social media platform's moderation decisions or user-created communities. Prager University v. Google LLC (2022)[1] - the court specifically held that YouTube's content moderation decisions didn't violate the Unruh Act. There's a clear distinction between access to services (where public accommodation laws may apply), and content moderation/curation decisions (protected by Section 230). [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2022/h047714.html https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2022...
    - jjmarr 2y ago
      You are right, thank you for the citation. edit: there's another comment chain you might be interested in about whether the federal civil rights act is applicable.
Moto7451 2y ago
> This isn't the First Amendment, since it's just a ban based on identity instead of posting content. This is not why the First Amendment does not apply. The First Amendment does not apply to private entities. It restricts the government… > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. At least from a First Amendment standpoint, Reddit can do what it feels like to establish a religion, ban all religious discussion, tell reporters to go to hell, start a news feed, etc. There are other laws they do need to deal with of course. More commentary on this here: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/politics/first-amendment-explainer-2021-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/politics/first-amendment-expl...
- jjmarr 2y ago
  I agreed with you. If Reddit wanted to ban certain types of posts, they're entitled to under the First Amendment. They're not entitled to discriminate against certain races, ethnicities, or religions though. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/white-v-square/ https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/white-v-square/
  - riskable 2y ago
    They most certainly are allowed to discriminate based on religion. The only laws on the books regarding religious discrimination are for employers who could potentially discriminate against their employees (or in hiring) based on their religion: https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination There's no law that says you can't say, run a website that only allows atheists to participate, or non-Jews, or non-Christians, or non-Muslims, or whatever religion or religious classification that you want. Discriminating based on race or ethnicity is a different topic entirely. You can choose your religion (it's like, just your opinion, man) but you can't choose your race/ethnicity. There's much more complicated laws in that area.
    - pc86 2y ago
ideashower 2y ago
> I don't like Section 230 because "actual knowledge" no longer matters, as tech companies willfully blind themselves to the activities on their platforms. This is misleading. It seems like you're predicating your entire argument on the idea that there is a version of Section 230 that would require platforms to act on user reports of discrimination. But you're fundamentally misunderstanding the law's purpose: to protect platforms from liability for user content while preserving their right to moderate that content as they choose. Section 230 immunity doesn't depend on "actual knowledge." The law specifically provides immunity regardless of whether a platform has knowledge of illegal content. Providers can't be treated as publishers of third-party content, period. It's not that "'actual knowledge' no longer matters," it's that it never mattered. Anti-discrimination law is usually for things like public accommodations, not online forums.
- jjmarr 2y ago
  My point is that platforms should have more of a responsibility when they currently have none. > But you're fundamentally misunderstanding the law's purpose: to protect platforms from liability for user content while preserving their right to moderate that content as they choose. I understand that this is the purpose of the law, and I disagree with it. Section 230 has led to large platforms outsourcing most of their content to users because it shields the platform from legal liability. A user can post illegal content, engage in discrimination, harassment, etc. > Anti-discrimination law is usually for things like public accommodations, not online forums. Anti-discrimination law should be applicable to online forums. The average adult spends more than 2 hours a day on social media. Social media is now one of our main public accommodations. If one of the most-used websites in the USA has an unofficial policy of discriminating against Jewish people that isn't covered by the current laws as that policy is enforced solely by users, that means the law isn't achieving its objectives of preventing discrimination.
  - ideashower 2y ago
    > platforms should > Anti-discrimination law should I don't disagree with you. But you must distinguish between what the law does, and what it should do, in your view. Otherwise you are misleading people.
fallingknife 2y ago
That's a good thing. We don't want Meta to be adjudicating defamation. Just look at the mess DMCA takedown notices are. When you tell companies to adjudicate something like copyright or defamation, they are just going to go with an "everybody accused is guilty" standard. (The only exception is large and well known accounts that bring in enough ad revenue to justify human involvement.) This will just turn into another mechanism to force censorship by false reporting.

by jjmarr 2y ago

criley2 2y ago

I'm not sure where you learned that the US legal system is against religious discrimination in private organizations, but it's not strictly true. Many religious organizations in the US openly discriminate against people who are not their religion, from christian charities and businesses requiring staff to sign contracts that state they agree with/are members of the religion, to catholic hospitals openly discriminating against non-catholics based on their own "religious freedom to deny care". One way they can do this is an exemption to discrimination called bona fide occupational qualification suggesting that only certain people can do the job. In a more broad sense, any private organization with limited membership (signing up vs allowing everyone) can discriminate. For example some country clubs discriminate based on race to this day. One reason for this is that the constitution guarantees "Freedom of Association" which includes the ability to have selective membership.

jjmarr 2y ago
It's on a state-by-state basis.[1] In California in particular, courts have ruled online businesses that are public accommodations cannot discriminate:[2] > The California Supreme Court held that entering into an agreement with an online business is not necessary to establish standing under the Unruh Act. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Liu emphasized that “a person suffers discrimination under the Act when the person presents himself or herself to a business with an intent to use its services but encounters an exclusionary policy or practice that prevents him or her from using those services,” and that “visiting a website with intent to use its services is, for purposes of standing, equivalent to presenting oneself for services at a brick-and-mortar store.” I'm not sure what Catholic hospitals refuse non-Catholics care. My understanding is they refuse to provide medical treatments such as abortion that go against Catholic moral teachings, and this refusal is applied to everyone. [1] https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Online-Public-Accommodations-Report.pdf https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Onli... [2] https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/white-v-square/ https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/white-v-square/
- ideashower 2y ago
  > In California in particular, courts have ruled online businesses that are public accommodations cannot discriminate. Yes. But there is a legal distinction between a business website that offers goods/services to the public (like an online store), and a social media platform's moderation decisions or user-created communities. Prager University v. Google LLC (2022)[1] - the court specifically held that YouTube's content moderation decisions didn't violate the Unruh Act. There's a clear distinction between access to services (where public accommodation laws may apply), and content moderation/curation decisions (protected by Section 230). [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2022/h047714.html https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2022...
  - jjmarr 2y ago
    You are right, thank you for the citation. edit: there's another comment chain you might be interested in about whether the federal civil rights act is applicable.

Moto7451 2y ago

> This isn't the First Amendment, since it's just a ban based on identity instead of posting content. This is not why the First Amendment does not apply. The First Amendment does not apply to private entities. It restricts the government… > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. At least from a First Amendment standpoint, Reddit can do what it feels like to establish a religion, ban all religious discussion, tell reporters to go to hell, start a news feed, etc. There are other laws they do need to deal with of course. More commentary on this here: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/politics/first-amendment-explainer-2021-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/politics/first-amendment-expl...

jjmarr 2y ago
I agreed with you. If Reddit wanted to ban certain types of posts, they're entitled to under the First Amendment. They're not entitled to discriminate against certain races, ethnicities, or religions though. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/white-v-square/ https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/white-v-square/
- riskable 2y ago
  They most certainly are allowed to discriminate based on religion. The only laws on the books regarding religious discrimination are for employers who could potentially discriminate against their employees (or in hiring) based on their religion: https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination There's no law that says you can't say, run a website that only allows atheists to participate, or non-Jews, or non-Christians, or non-Muslims, or whatever religion or religious classification that you want. Discriminating based on race or ethnicity is a different topic entirely. You can choose your religion (it's like, just your opinion, man) but you can't choose your race/ethnicity. There's much more complicated laws in that area.
  - pc86 2y ago

ideashower 2y ago

> I don't like Section 230 because "actual knowledge" no longer matters, as tech companies willfully blind themselves to the activities on their platforms. This is misleading. It seems like you're predicating your entire argument on the idea that there is a version of Section 230 that would require platforms to act on user reports of discrimination. But you're fundamentally misunderstanding the law's purpose: to protect platforms from liability for user content while preserving their right to moderate that content as they choose. Section 230 immunity doesn't depend on "actual knowledge." The law specifically provides immunity regardless of whether a platform has knowledge of illegal content. Providers can't be treated as publishers of third-party content, period. It's not that "'actual knowledge' no longer matters," it's that it never mattered. Anti-discrimination law is usually for things like public accommodations, not online forums.

jjmarr 2y ago
My point is that platforms should have more of a responsibility when they currently have none. > But you're fundamentally misunderstanding the law's purpose: to protect platforms from liability for user content while preserving their right to moderate that content as they choose. I understand that this is the purpose of the law, and I disagree with it. Section 230 has led to large platforms outsourcing most of their content to users because it shields the platform from legal liability. A user can post illegal content, engage in discrimination, harassment, etc. > Anti-discrimination law is usually for things like public accommodations, not online forums. Anti-discrimination law should be applicable to online forums. The average adult spends more than 2 hours a day on social media. Social media is now one of our main public accommodations. If one of the most-used websites in the USA has an unofficial policy of discriminating against Jewish people that isn't covered by the current laws as that policy is enforced solely by users, that means the law isn't achieving its objectives of preventing discrimination.
- ideashower 2y ago
  > platforms should > Anti-discrimination law should I don't disagree with you. But you must distinguish between what the law does, and what it should do, in your view. Otherwise you are misleading people.

fallingknife 2y ago

That's a good thing. We don't want Meta to be adjudicating defamation. Just look at the mess DMCA takedown notices are. When you tell companies to adjudicate something like copyright or defamation, they are just going to go with an "everybody accused is guilty" standard. (The only exception is large and well known accounts that bring in enough ad revenue to justify human involvement.) This will just turn into another mechanism to force censorship by false reporting.