6 ms·

Section 230 Immunizes OnlyFans for User-Uploaded Video–DOE vs. Fenix

52 points by hn_acker 2y ago

hooverd 2y ago
Their failure to require a model release is pretty damning to me.
- icu 2y ago
  As much as I disagree with the concept of OF content, I do believe that people should be free to do what they want, provided it is consentual and it isn't harming others. However, OF—and any adult content for that matter—can lead to exploitation. Because of this, I think it is sensible for online platforms of adult content to voluntarily require a model release and proof of Government ID as part of their Terms of Service. Since this isn't happening, it now seems sensible to regulate that any, and all, adult content posted online require a model release. The way I see it, OF was morally complicit in this sordid affair, but couldn't be held to account due to the law. The OF management could have easily protected themselves, and sexual assault victims, from these worst case scenarios but didn't. The law really needs to change and there needs to be regulation in this area.
  - Eridrus 2y ago
    I am skeptical that putting a model release requirement in their ToS is sufficient, since the goal here is to have sex offenders be separable from regretful models in court proceedings. I think this might require a separate law to be meaningfully enforceable since you really want people to be directly liable for the lack of release, rather than having defendants claim "nobody ever reads the ToS or has a release". At the very least it would probably require very clear messaging from OFs that this is required, such that basically everyone on the platform actually has/is able to produce it.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      Stock photography sites have figured out how to manage model releases. There's no reason that OF can't do it as well. I think that any model appearing in a video that is released on OF should have an "account" that they can manage their releases as well even if that is a separate account that does not include a normal page for publishing content. If a video is uploaded that does not have each model linked, it is not allowed to be published type of thing
      - Onavo 2y ago
        Stock photography sites don't generally provide nudes and sex videos.
        dylan604 2y ago
        what's your point?
        mmh0000 2y ago
        Um, have you ever looked at "stock photography sites"? Here's Getty, one of the largest: NSFW - https://www.gettyimages.com.au/search/2/image?phrase=nude%20sexy%20woman&sort=mostpopular&license=rf%2Crm https://www.gettyimages.com.au/search/2/image?phrase=nude%20...
      - Eridrus 2y ago
        I think this is a great point; I don't think it is widely known (it certainly was not to me) that stock photography sites already have a model release process to reference.
    - icu 2y ago
      I wasn't really thinking about regretful models, I was thinking about rape and sexual assault victims. I don't have any firsthand knowledge about any of this stuff, but I imagine that a signed model release and verfied Government ID falls under contract law. I have no idea about how the law would deal with a situation where a model recinds their consent. My guess is that would have to be dealt with in court. However, I do think requiring signed releases and verified Government ID might have prevented the case mentioned in the post... not the rape or sexual assault, but putting the video online, which would have caused even more pain and suffering on the part of the victim.
  - Onavo 2y ago
    Model release isn't enough, the feds need to actually back it with legislation and perhaps ensure all the signing happen at a police station, so no accusations of consent can be bandied about. Given the amount of revenue the industry generated for LA and Florida, this should not be controversial. There was the infamous "girl do porn" case last year where even with model release the producers were accused of public distribution when the contract said it was for private release and the models decided to sue for sexual assault based on a contract law breach. The industry needs to be thoroughly regulated with lots of sunshine lists on all players, contract law and civil courts will only lead to tragedy.
    - Eridrus 2y ago
      The model releases did not protect the offenders in the GirlsDoPorn case and serious prison sentences were handed out, so I'm not sure what you think went wrong with the law here? (My reading here is cursory, so do let me know) It seems like the main offender escaped justice for a while because he fled the country? Requiring this level of sustained abuse to prosecute people is obviously bad, so I am entirely open to the idea that more should be done here to prevent this abuse, but it seems like these people were prosecuted beyond a reasonable doubt despite having some sort of releases.
palsecam 2y ago
Legal reference: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2023-title47/USCODE-2023-title47-chap5-subchapII-partI-sec230/ https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2023-title47/USCO... (“47 U.S.C. § 230”). On Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Sec...
perihelions 2y ago
Surprisingly, the other tech platforms seem to be entirely content to continue platforming, and monetizing, these people: - "Romelus and Charles denied [sic] to comment after pleading guilty." - "Romelus told NBC6 that the reason he didn’t want to comment was because he hadn’t told his fans on social media about the incident." - "“Thing is, I’m an influencer,” Romelus said."
- spacebanana7 2y ago
  Should the terms of service of a tech platform apply to all public activity a person conducts? Would it be fair for TikTok to ban me because I posted nudes on instagram? Or execution videos on Telegram? Or angry comments about my local Starbucks on Facebook?
  - perihelions 2y ago
    Private websites are free to ban whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. ToS aren't contractual guarantees of service.
    - nolok 2y ago
      > for any reason they want Actually, unless there is a clear disconnect between how discrimination laws work here and in the US, no they can't. They can't ban you for being black, or homosexual, or christian, or ... They CAN ban you for no reason at all, just because they feel like it. It might seem to be the same, but it isn't.
      - perihelions 2y ago
        None of those laws are applicable to internet forums; they are not "public accommodations" in the sense of the Civil Rights Act [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_U...
        2y ago
stego-tech 2y ago
Quite the horrifying read, and absolutely a case that will be used as ammo to tear down S230. I love S230 in principle. I don’t think platforms should generally be held accountable for the postings of their users to a point. On paper, it’s an excellent safeguard that has enabled the modern internet for better or worse. As with all “good things”, however, bad actors have found ways to exploit it for their own ends, and an incompetent Congress has failed to reform it. Modern polarization isn’t helping, as the respective camps regarding S230 tend to be “protect it as is” or “repeal it entirely”, neither of which is appealing or worthwhile. S230 is flawed, and it must be amended, updated, or replaced with a better version that addresses common grievances. In my subjective experience, I would prefer to see S230’s protections “scale” with the size of the platform and its function. For instance (and I know this will be a highly controversial take), I don’t think large, centralized platforms like FB or X should have S230 protections at all, because of the high degree of control, immense profits available to invest in R&D or better moderation, and the repeated failures of those companies to moderate misinformation and harmful content while also claiming to be authoritative and reliable sources of public information. On the flip side, your small (sub-10k users) community should have full S230 protections, because you’re a niche that likely serves a smaller cohort, rather than a centralized monolith of the general public. Could such restrictions be exploited to create similar harms as the above? Of course, but at least a modest reform like that would serve as a warning shot to both sides that no legislation is ever “done”, and we must continue to adapt it to ensure it meets the needs of modern times.
- sroussey 2y ago
  What about telephone calls and their content?
  - djbusby 2y ago
    Telephone is currently private conversation. Need a warrant to get in (tap).
    - mmh0000 2y ago
      "Need" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. This is from just a quick unrefined search: https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/02/secret-service-ice-warrantless-stingray/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/02/secret-service-ice-warrant... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/county-sheriffs-warrantlessly-use-stingray-500-times-claim-to-have-no-records/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/county-sheriffs-...
zarzavat 2y ago
Given that Musk is Trump's primary backer, will Trump really sign off on a repeal of 230? Would be quite the slap in the face.
- therouwboat 2y ago
  Maybe they can add exemption for companies that work for greater good.
- throw16180339 2y ago
  I don't see why that would stop him; he has a long history of stabbing allies in the back.
  - zarzavat 2y ago
    Turning that on its head, Trump's political positions are just as fluid as his allegiances. I don't believe that Trump really cares about section 230, but Musk definitely cares a lot as he has $40B invested in an edgy social media platform. As long as Musk keeps the money flowing, Trump doesn't have any reason to backstab him. It's possible they may fall out at some point but that hasn't happened yet.
pavlov 2y ago
Does Trump still want to repeal Section 230? He was in favor in 2020, but that was a long time ago. Now he’s co-governing with Musk. Both billionaires own social media platforms that benefit from Section 230 protections. What’s the incentive for them to push for a repeal?
- sroussey 2y ago
  Trump will only do what is in his personal self interest.
- icu 2y ago
  Anyone who thinks they can say with certainty what Trump will do just isn't credible. That said, my guess is that Trump will change Section 230 to force neutrality and free speech or Section 230 protections will be lost. I don't see how that is incompatible with X or Truth Social.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    Maybe there will be a requirement for X style public algorithms.
    - pavlov 2y ago
      Does anyone actually believe Twitter’s algorithm is public? When the company’s mercurial owner wants to amplify some voices and silence others, does he make a pull request on the GitHub repo? If you don’t think that kind of thing happens on Twitter/X, you haven’t been paying attention. Anyway, Republicans generally favor less regulation and less enforcement, not more. If there’s a new rule that requires companies to publish something, but it’s not actually enforced, then it doesn’t mean anything. Companies can just publish something vaguely plausible out of some old code snapshot (like Twitter does today).
  - pavlov 2y ago
    > “change Section 230 to force neutrality and free speech” How would that revised law look like? Would courts be tasked with determining whether a defendant in a Section 230 lawsuit had been sufficiently neutral? The standard for libel is extremely high in America compared to many other countries. By the same logic, the standard for losing Section 230 protections should be similarly high. Otherwise courts become unwilling arbiters of what’s acceptable speech.
Eridrus 2y ago
It feels weird to view this case as a primary Section 230 issue rather than looking at the fact that the DA did not prosecute this case and took a plea deal. Civil trials have a lower burden of proof, so it's unsurprising the plaintiff is seeking a remedy here, but the core issue seems to be that we are unable to prosecute this case as the criminal matter it clearly is.
- DebtDeflation 2y ago
  They were facing up to 93 years in prison for the rape and obscene content distribution charges and the prosecutor agreed to a plea deal of one year probation, 100 hours of community services, and an agreement to cease posting content to social media. People have gotten worse sentences for simple marijuana possession. Sometimes the criminal justice system makes absolutely no sense to me.
  - Eridrus 2y ago
    I presume the issue here is that the DA did not believe they could prove beyond reasonable doubt that this was assault and not a model regretting she did a porn shoot. It vaguely sounds like they had an OF that did a bunch of these shoots, and presumably the DA didn't manage to get any other girls on record saying they were assaulted (how hard they tried etc is unclear).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- TZubiri 2y ago
  Citation needed on being a criminal matter (in the case against the content provider). I mean I guess the only real definition of something being a criminal matter, is if there's litigation and court rules in favour of plaintiff. Second best definition is if someone opens a criminal case, at least then there would be a contention that it's a criminal matter. In this case neither happened so there's no source to backup that claim. I wouldn't be surprised to see a criminal case being opened against a publisher/alleged publisher for dissemination of a criminal act, but I do think it would be dismissed eventually.
bastloing 2y ago
Should be able to post except when it violates the TOS, or is illegal.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
[flagged]
TacticalCoder 2y ago
[flagged]
- tzs 2y ago
  Are you seriously complaining that a blog that focuses on technology law mentioned Trump's prior actions and positions specifically related to the technology law that this blog entry was about without mentioning a bunch of (alleged) Harris positions on subjects that have nothing whatsoever to do with technology law?
TZubiri 2y ago
"Is OnlyFans an ICP?" What does ICP stand for?
- palsecam 2y ago
  In the context of US law, ICP is an acronym for Internet Content Provider [source: AI; seems OK but can’t guarantee it].
  - TZubiri 2y ago
    Ah I see, in the context os Section 230 it would be the new categorization of the party that is no longer considered a publisher and no longer subject to the liabilities that come with being a publisher.
TZubiri 2y ago
"b) displayed a check mark next to Romelus’ name showing that he was “verified” and creating the impression he should be trusted;" Not sure what express warranties OnlyFans makes to its customers, or regulators. But a verified checkmark in this context should obviously mean that the subject of the account, either is the administrator of the account, or that the administrator and subject are connected by express permission to administrate the account in the name of the subject. That is, that a girl is uploading her own videos, and not that someone else is uploading the videos for them. I could understand that in this case maybe the man in the video was verified. And it is the account that is verified, so if the girl changes in each video, there would need to be a per-video verification, or a policy that treats men and women differently with regards to verification, or some kind of third party verification. Not an easy case. Furthermore, there is the case or interpretation that the material is acted, but requiring verification and consent of third parties in uploads seems like a pretty standard requirement to me. Not a lawyer, not a judge, but it seems pretty sensible to me that all parties in a video should consent and be verified by the provider, perhaps not on a per-video basis, but just add allowed subjects/actors, the first time may be a hassle and the next time would be easier. There's various types of consent that might be evident in video, consent to record, consent to distribute and consent to have sex obviously. I think it's unreasonable to ask for consent to be a part of the video or depend on the contents of the video for such consent verification. The begged question is, how many videos exist were the third parties did not consent to recording or distributing the videos? Logistically the mechanisms for consent for the distributor should be the same, there is never a dependency in the contents of the video to verify such consent, nor is there any expectation that the distributor will see the videos to verify such consent (although there may be an expectation to view the contents of the video for other purposes, such as verifying age or verifying that it contains the allowed actors) Such verification must occur off-band, not merely by analysis of the content of the videos itself. Caveat, I do think OnlyFans is following regulations and goes in the right direction, fuck free "tube" types of sites, even after regulation. If you consume any type of porn, at least pay for it. Or just do whatever you do, but don't pretend you have the high road over those who pay and fund legal efforts to regulate this shit. And if I take the focus off the rape, I apologize, but I think that general consent, in this case to record and distribute, is probably the only one relevant to the defendant of OnlyFans. Which is no small thing, being liable for distributing sexual videos without the consent of the subject. The fact that the subject was raped would be an aggravant, but the general technicalities of the case play out the same way as a consensual sex partner that did not consent to being recorded or distributed. The court actually responded to this as this was a small part of the complaint, which I believe holds the most merit. " (f) failed to enforce its alleged corporate policy requiring a signed release form showing consent by any third party (like Plaintiff) who appears in a posted video and " the response was "OnlyFans’ failure to enforce its policy requiring signed model releases didn’t add to the illegality and runs contrary to Section 230’s negation of the moderator’s dilemma." I'll straight out say that I don't know what this means or how it plays out, but I will say that, even though the complaints are handled independently. Possibly the efforts expended on other complaints that had less merit took some resources away from this point. I think in the future sounder legal strategies will focus on this point, and case law will develop around vanilla failure to consent to record and publish, rather than lack of consent to sex (rape). So that's my take.
TZubiri 2y ago
Complaint "(f) failed to enforce its alleged corporate policy requiring a signed release form showing consent by any third party (like Plaintiff) who appears in a posted video an" Court ruling summary "OnlyFans’ failure to enforce its policy requiring signed model releases didn’t add to the illegality and runs contrary to Section 230’s negation of the moderator’s dilemma." So bottom line, a pornographic video distrbutor doesn't have the legal responsibility to ask for proof that the subjects of the video consent to being recorded and distributed? Sounds like an easy bipartisan law to pass right? I get that it may not be the case for filming people walking on the streets, but if there's fucking there should be a verification system similar to the one I have to do when I open an bank account or whatever, you know where they scan your id and ask you to make a video saying you consent to opening an account or to put your face closer or farther from the camera? Call your senator type of deal?
- TZubiri 2y ago
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 "every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct— (1)ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations; (2)ascertain any name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and (3)record in the records required by subsection (a) the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by regulation." I mean, this seems like a basic requirement to verify everyone is of age. Did the rapist send ids and names to OnlyFans or something?
  - ivewonyoung 2y ago
    The source page you cited, i.e the law, explicitly says the text you quoted applies to only producers and does not apply to distributors like OF.
    - 2y ago
TZubiri 2y ago
With regards to: "(g) took a 20% share of the profits from all of Romelus’ videos." and court judgment summary: "OnlyFans’ revenue share didn’t add to the content illegality." Couldn't it be argued (and this is a very general question about the proportionality of prices charged and expected services provided) that by charging 20% the responsibilities of the provided must be conmesurate? The legal expectations for a free platform like twitter or facebook cannot be the same as a host that charges 50$ per file for example, as there is an expectation when hosting a file of some services, whether they be reliability or integrity of the content. If there were a trial against facebook for the data being lost, the case should be easily dismissed as there was no consideration, the content was hosted for free, now if we go to trial against a host that charges 50$ for a small file, then we would have to discover where the money went! And what expenses were used to host the material! Similarly we cannot expect the responsibilities and warranties of a free service to be the same as those of a paid service.
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  I view them as completely separate issues. We need 230 immunity in some form or else the whole telecommunications system falls apart (although I am a fan of Trump's plan to make it apply only to sites following the law and removing only illegal content, as this censorship nonsense we have been dealing with for the last decade or two implies the platform knows what they are publishing and is editorializing which should make it liable, just as a newspaper is liable for what it publishes). What is charged for distribution is more of an antitrust issue to me (i.e. 20% is clearly ridiculous unless there are a bunch of reach/network effects the platform offers due to it having market power. mitigating that market power is almost always a good idea).
  - TZubiri 2y ago
    What is charged for distribution is more of an antitrust issue to me (i.e. "20% is clearly ridiculous unless there are a bunch of reach/network effects the platform offers due to it having market power. mitigating that market power is almost always a good idea)." Now that IS a different matter and Off Topic

52 points by hn_acker 2y ago

hooverd 2y ago

Their failure to require a model release is pretty damning to me.

icu 2y ago
As much as I disagree with the concept of OF content, I do believe that people should be free to do what they want, provided it is consentual and it isn't harming others. However, OF—and any adult content for that matter—can lead to exploitation. Because of this, I think it is sensible for online platforms of adult content to voluntarily require a model release and proof of Government ID as part of their Terms of Service. Since this isn't happening, it now seems sensible to regulate that any, and all, adult content posted online require a model release. The way I see it, OF was morally complicit in this sordid affair, but couldn't be held to account due to the law. The OF management could have easily protected themselves, and sexual assault victims, from these worst case scenarios but didn't. The law really needs to change and there needs to be regulation in this area.
- Eridrus 2y ago
  I am skeptical that putting a model release requirement in their ToS is sufficient, since the goal here is to have sex offenders be separable from regretful models in court proceedings. I think this might require a separate law to be meaningfully enforceable since you really want people to be directly liable for the lack of release, rather than having defendants claim "nobody ever reads the ToS or has a release". At the very least it would probably require very clear messaging from OFs that this is required, such that basically everyone on the platform actually has/is able to produce it.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Stock photography sites have figured out how to manage model releases. There's no reason that OF can't do it as well. I think that any model appearing in a video that is released on OF should have an "account" that they can manage their releases as well even if that is a separate account that does not include a normal page for publishing content. If a video is uploaded that does not have each model linked, it is not allowed to be published type of thing
    - Onavo 2y ago
      Stock photography sites don't generally provide nudes and sex videos.
      - dylan604 2y ago
        what's your point?
      - mmh0000 2y ago
        Um, have you ever looked at "stock photography sites"? Here's Getty, one of the largest: NSFW - https://www.gettyimages.com.au/search/2/image?phrase=nude%20sexy%20woman&sort=mostpopular&license=rf%2Crm https://www.gettyimages.com.au/search/2/image?phrase=nude%20...
    - Eridrus 2y ago
      I think this is a great point; I don't think it is widely known (it certainly was not to me) that stock photography sites already have a model release process to reference.
  - icu 2y ago
    I wasn't really thinking about regretful models, I was thinking about rape and sexual assault victims. I don't have any firsthand knowledge about any of this stuff, but I imagine that a signed model release and verfied Government ID falls under contract law. I have no idea about how the law would deal with a situation where a model recinds their consent. My guess is that would have to be dealt with in court. However, I do think requiring signed releases and verified Government ID might have prevented the case mentioned in the post... not the rape or sexual assault, but putting the video online, which would have caused even more pain and suffering on the part of the victim.
- Onavo 2y ago
  Model release isn't enough, the feds need to actually back it with legislation and perhaps ensure all the signing happen at a police station, so no accusations of consent can be bandied about. Given the amount of revenue the industry generated for LA and Florida, this should not be controversial. There was the infamous "girl do porn" case last year where even with model release the producers were accused of public distribution when the contract said it was for private release and the models decided to sue for sexual assault based on a contract law breach. The industry needs to be thoroughly regulated with lots of sunshine lists on all players, contract law and civil courts will only lead to tragedy.
  - Eridrus 2y ago
    The model releases did not protect the offenders in the GirlsDoPorn case and serious prison sentences were handed out, so I'm not sure what you think went wrong with the law here? (My reading here is cursory, so do let me know) It seems like the main offender escaped justice for a while because he fled the country? Requiring this level of sustained abuse to prosecute people is obviously bad, so I am entirely open to the idea that more should be done here to prevent this abuse, but it seems like these people were prosecuted beyond a reasonable doubt despite having some sort of releases.

palsecam 2y ago

Legal reference: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2023-title47/USCODE-2023-title47-chap5-subchapII-partI-sec230/ https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2023-title47/USCO... (“47 U.S.C. § 230”). On Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Sec...

perihelions 2y ago

Surprisingly, the other tech platforms seem to be entirely content to continue platforming, and monetizing, these people: - "Romelus and Charles denied [sic] to comment after pleading guilty." - "Romelus told NBC6 that the reason he didn’t want to comment was because he hadn’t told his fans on social media about the incident." - "“Thing is, I’m an influencer,” Romelus said."

spacebanana7 2y ago
Should the terms of service of a tech platform apply to all public activity a person conducts? Would it be fair for TikTok to ban me because I posted nudes on instagram? Or execution videos on Telegram? Or angry comments about my local Starbucks on Facebook?
- perihelions 2y ago
  Private websites are free to ban whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. ToS aren't contractual guarantees of service.
  - nolok 2y ago
    > for any reason they want Actually, unless there is a clear disconnect between how discrimination laws work here and in the US, no they can't. They can't ban you for being black, or homosexual, or christian, or ... They CAN ban you for no reason at all, just because they feel like it. It might seem to be the same, but it isn't.
    - perihelions 2y ago
      None of those laws are applicable to internet forums; they are not "public accommodations" in the sense of the Civil Rights Act [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_U...
      - 2y ago

stego-tech 2y ago

Quite the horrifying read, and absolutely a case that will be used as ammo to tear down S230. I love S230 in principle. I don’t think platforms should generally be held accountable for the postings of their users to a point. On paper, it’s an excellent safeguard that has enabled the modern internet for better or worse. As with all “good things”, however, bad actors have found ways to exploit it for their own ends, and an incompetent Congress has failed to reform it. Modern polarization isn’t helping, as the respective camps regarding S230 tend to be “protect it as is” or “repeal it entirely”, neither of which is appealing or worthwhile. S230 is flawed, and it must be amended, updated, or replaced with a better version that addresses common grievances. In my subjective experience, I would prefer to see S230’s protections “scale” with the size of the platform and its function. For instance (and I know this will be a highly controversial take), I don’t think large, centralized platforms like FB or X should have S230 protections at all, because of the high degree of control, immense profits available to invest in R&D or better moderation, and the repeated failures of those companies to moderate misinformation and harmful content while also claiming to be authoritative and reliable sources of public information. On the flip side, your small (sub-10k users) community should have full S230 protections, because you’re a niche that likely serves a smaller cohort, rather than a centralized monolith of the general public. Could such restrictions be exploited to create similar harms as the above? Of course, but at least a modest reform like that would serve as a warning shot to both sides that no legislation is ever “done”, and we must continue to adapt it to ensure it meets the needs of modern times.

sroussey 2y ago
What about telephone calls and their content?
- djbusby 2y ago
  Telephone is currently private conversation. Need a warrant to get in (tap).
  - mmh0000 2y ago
    "Need" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. This is from just a quick unrefined search: https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/02/secret-service-ice-warrantless-stingray/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/02/secret-service-ice-warrant... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/county-sheriffs-warrantlessly-use-stingray-500-times-claim-to-have-no-records/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/county-sheriffs-...

zarzavat 2y ago

Given that Musk is Trump's primary backer, will Trump really sign off on a repeal of 230? Would be quite the slap in the face.

therouwboat 2y ago
Maybe they can add exemption for companies that work for greater good.
throw16180339 2y ago
I don't see why that would stop him; he has a long history of stabbing allies in the back.
- zarzavat 2y ago
  Turning that on its head, Trump's political positions are just as fluid as his allegiances. I don't believe that Trump really cares about section 230, but Musk definitely cares a lot as he has $40B invested in an edgy social media platform. As long as Musk keeps the money flowing, Trump doesn't have any reason to backstab him. It's possible they may fall out at some point but that hasn't happened yet.

pavlov 2y ago

Does Trump still want to repeal Section 230? He was in favor in 2020, but that was a long time ago. Now he’s co-governing with Musk. Both billionaires own social media platforms that benefit from Section 230 protections. What’s the incentive for them to push for a repeal?

sroussey 2y ago
Trump will only do what is in his personal self interest.
icu 2y ago
Anyone who thinks they can say with certainty what Trump will do just isn't credible. That said, my guess is that Trump will change Section 230 to force neutrality and free speech or Section 230 protections will be lost. I don't see how that is incompatible with X or Truth Social.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Maybe there will be a requirement for X style public algorithms.
  - pavlov 2y ago
    Does anyone actually believe Twitter’s algorithm is public? When the company’s mercurial owner wants to amplify some voices and silence others, does he make a pull request on the GitHub repo? If you don’t think that kind of thing happens on Twitter/X, you haven’t been paying attention. Anyway, Republicans generally favor less regulation and less enforcement, not more. If there’s a new rule that requires companies to publish something, but it’s not actually enforced, then it doesn’t mean anything. Companies can just publish something vaguely plausible out of some old code snapshot (like Twitter does today).
- pavlov 2y ago
  > “change Section 230 to force neutrality and free speech” How would that revised law look like? Would courts be tasked with determining whether a defendant in a Section 230 lawsuit had been sufficiently neutral? The standard for libel is extremely high in America compared to many other countries. By the same logic, the standard for losing Section 230 protections should be similarly high. Otherwise courts become unwilling arbiters of what’s acceptable speech.

Eridrus 2y ago

It feels weird to view this case as a primary Section 230 issue rather than looking at the fact that the DA did not prosecute this case and took a plea deal. Civil trials have a lower burden of proof, so it's unsurprising the plaintiff is seeking a remedy here, but the core issue seems to be that we are unable to prosecute this case as the criminal matter it clearly is.

DebtDeflation 2y ago
They were facing up to 93 years in prison for the rape and obscene content distribution charges and the prosecutor agreed to a plea deal of one year probation, 100 hours of community services, and an agreement to cease posting content to social media. People have gotten worse sentences for simple marijuana possession. Sometimes the criminal justice system makes absolutely no sense to me.
- Eridrus 2y ago
  I presume the issue here is that the DA did not believe they could prove beyond reasonable doubt that this was assault and not a model regretting she did a porn shoot. It vaguely sounds like they had an OF that did a bunch of these shoots, and presumably the DA didn't manage to get any other girls on record saying they were assaulted (how hard they tried etc is unclear).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
TZubiri 2y ago
Citation needed on being a criminal matter (in the case against the content provider). I mean I guess the only real definition of something being a criminal matter, is if there's litigation and court rules in favour of plaintiff. Second best definition is if someone opens a criminal case, at least then there would be a contention that it's a criminal matter. In this case neither happened so there's no source to backup that claim. I wouldn't be surprised to see a criminal case being opened against a publisher/alleged publisher for dissemination of a criminal act, but I do think it would be dismissed eventually.

bastloing 2y ago

Should be able to post except when it violates the TOS, or is illegal.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

[flagged]

TacticalCoder 2y ago

[flagged]

tzs 2y ago
Are you seriously complaining that a blog that focuses on technology law mentioned Trump's prior actions and positions specifically related to the technology law that this blog entry was about without mentioning a bunch of (alleged) Harris positions on subjects that have nothing whatsoever to do with technology law?

TZubiri 2y ago

"Is OnlyFans an ICP?" What does ICP stand for?

palsecam 2y ago
In the context of US law, ICP is an acronym for Internet Content Provider [source: AI; seems OK but can’t guarantee it].
- TZubiri 2y ago
  Ah I see, in the context os Section 230 it would be the new categorization of the party that is no longer considered a publisher and no longer subject to the liabilities that come with being a publisher.

TZubiri 2y ago

"b) displayed a check mark next to Romelus’ name showing that he was “verified” and creating the impression he should be trusted;" Not sure what express warranties OnlyFans makes to its customers, or regulators. But a verified checkmark in this context should obviously mean that the subject of the account, either is the administrator of the account, or that the administrator and subject are connected by express permission to administrate the account in the name of the subject. That is, that a girl is uploading her own videos, and not that someone else is uploading the videos for them. I could understand that in this case maybe the man in the video was verified. And it is the account that is verified, so if the girl changes in each video, there would need to be a per-video verification, or a policy that treats men and women differently with regards to verification, or some kind of third party verification. Not an easy case. Furthermore, there is the case or interpretation that the material is acted, but requiring verification and consent of third parties in uploads seems like a pretty standard requirement to me. Not a lawyer, not a judge, but it seems pretty sensible to me that all parties in a video should consent and be verified by the provider, perhaps not on a per-video basis, but just add allowed subjects/actors, the first time may be a hassle and the next time would be easier. There's various types of consent that might be evident in video, consent to record, consent to distribute and consent to have sex obviously. I think it's unreasonable to ask for consent to be a part of the video or depend on the contents of the video for such consent verification. The begged question is, how many videos exist were the third parties did not consent to recording or distributing the videos? Logistically the mechanisms for consent for the distributor should be the same, there is never a dependency in the contents of the video to verify such consent, nor is there any expectation that the distributor will see the videos to verify such consent (although there may be an expectation to view the contents of the video for other purposes, such as verifying age or verifying that it contains the allowed actors) Such verification must occur off-band, not merely by analysis of the content of the videos itself. Caveat, I do think OnlyFans is following regulations and goes in the right direction, fuck free "tube" types of sites, even after regulation. If you consume any type of porn, at least pay for it. Or just do whatever you do, but don't pretend you have the high road over those who pay and fund legal efforts to regulate this shit. And if I take the focus off the rape, I apologize, but I think that general consent, in this case to record and distribute, is probably the only one relevant to the defendant of OnlyFans. Which is no small thing, being liable for distributing sexual videos without the consent of the subject. The fact that the subject was raped would be an aggravant, but the general technicalities of the case play out the same way as a consensual sex partner that did not consent to being recorded or distributed. The court actually responded to this as this was a small part of the complaint, which I believe holds the most merit. " (f) failed to enforce its alleged corporate policy requiring a signed release form showing consent by any third party (like Plaintiff) who appears in a posted video and " the response was "OnlyFans’ failure to enforce its policy requiring signed model releases didn’t add to the illegality and runs contrary to Section 230’s negation of the moderator’s dilemma." I'll straight out say that I don't know what this means or how it plays out, but I will say that, even though the complaints are handled independently. Possibly the efforts expended on other complaints that had less merit took some resources away from this point. I think in the future sounder legal strategies will focus on this point, and case law will develop around vanilla failure to consent to record and publish, rather than lack of consent to sex (rape). So that's my take.

TZubiri 2y ago

Complaint "(f) failed to enforce its alleged corporate policy requiring a signed release form showing consent by any third party (like Plaintiff) who appears in a posted video an" Court ruling summary "OnlyFans’ failure to enforce its policy requiring signed model releases didn’t add to the illegality and runs contrary to Section 230’s negation of the moderator’s dilemma." So bottom line, a pornographic video distrbutor doesn't have the legal responsibility to ask for proof that the subjects of the video consent to being recorded and distributed? Sounds like an easy bipartisan law to pass right? I get that it may not be the case for filming people walking on the streets, but if there's fucking there should be a verification system similar to the one I have to do when I open an bank account or whatever, you know where they scan your id and ask you to make a video saying you consent to opening an account or to put your face closer or farther from the camera? Call your senator type of deal?

TZubiri 2y ago
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 "every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct— (1)ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations; (2)ascertain any name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and (3)record in the records required by subsection (a) the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by regulation." I mean, this seems like a basic requirement to verify everyone is of age. Did the rapist send ids and names to OnlyFans or something?
- ivewonyoung 2y ago
  The source page you cited, i.e the law, explicitly says the text you quoted applies to only producers and does not apply to distributors like OF.
  - 2y ago

TZubiri 2y ago

With regards to: "(g) took a 20% share of the profits from all of Romelus’ videos." and court judgment summary: "OnlyFans’ revenue share didn’t add to the content illegality." Couldn't it be argued (and this is a very general question about the proportionality of prices charged and expected services provided) that by charging 20% the responsibilities of the provided must be conmesurate? The legal expectations for a free platform like twitter or facebook cannot be the same as a host that charges 50$ per file for example, as there is an expectation when hosting a file of some services, whether they be reliability or integrity of the content. If there were a trial against facebook for the data being lost, the case should be easily dismissed as there was no consideration, the content was hosted for free, now if we go to trial against a host that charges 50$ for a small file, then we would have to discover where the money went! And what expenses were used to host the material! Similarly we cannot expect the responsibilities and warranties of a free service to be the same as those of a paid service.

snapplebobapple 2y ago
I view them as completely separate issues. We need 230 immunity in some form or else the whole telecommunications system falls apart (although I am a fan of Trump's plan to make it apply only to sites following the law and removing only illegal content, as this censorship nonsense we have been dealing with for the last decade or two implies the platform knows what they are publishing and is editorializing which should make it liable, just as a newspaper is liable for what it publishes). What is charged for distribution is more of an antitrust issue to me (i.e. 20% is clearly ridiculous unless there are a bunch of reach/network effects the platform offers due to it having market power. mitigating that market power is almost always a good idea).
- TZubiri 2y ago
  What is charged for distribution is more of an antitrust issue to me (i.e. "20% is clearly ridiculous unless there are a bunch of reach/network effects the platform offers due to it having market power. mitigating that market power is almost always a good idea)." Now that IS a different matter and Off Topic