4 ms·

This is the kind of outcome Section 230 (of US' Communications Decency Act of 1996) was intended to prevent. It's an unpopular opinion in tech circles, but thi

This is the kind of outcome Section 230 (of US' Communications Decency Act of 1996) was intended to prevent. It's an unpopular opinion in tech circles, but this right here is why I support the very maligned Section 230—in fact, I wish it'd go much farther. I think it's a core human right to talk on the internet and to create websites: a right that should be protected, in practice, by granting powerful immunities to third-parties, like forum administrators. Else you end up with chilling effects like this one, chilling things no reasonable free society would want to chill.

Kerrick 2y ago
With containerization and cheap cloud instances, people can much more easily deploy their own instance of a service like this such that only they (and maybe their trusted friends) can log in. My wife has a private paste bin that she runs on her own subdomain. There are no concerns about content moderation because all of the content is hers, and traffic is so minimal that one VPS can run a bunch of these little services.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lovich 2y ago
  I think reverting to only talking to your small social circle instead of the public at large might be one of those chilling effects the OP mentioned
  - dowager_dan99 2y ago
    maybe? but they also feel like completely different use-cases. It would be nice if we could solve the service discoverability problem and the service utilization problem independently. Just like the vast majority of businesses shouldn't be high-growth startups, most resources & communities should be intimate and relatively private.
  - Kerrick 2y ago
    The paste bin contents are visible to the public at large. The visibility of the content is no different than if she'd picked a public paste bin service--it just means nobody has to moderate anything because the uploader is the service owner.
- eviks 2y ago
  > people can much more easily deploy But not easily, so this still won't happen.
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
If it is right to have a website how far do you want to go? * You are forbidden from turning off a shared server * You are forbidden from removing a colocated server * You are forbidden from disconnecting an ISP customer * You are forbidden from closing a bank account * You are forbidden from refusing payments from this bank People who want to censor you just go further up the chain if they don't like what you're saying.
- perihelions 2y ago
  Huh? You're really confused. Nothing in the 1st Amendment or Section 230 obligates *private parties* from hosting content they don't like! (Actually, they have an affirmative 1st Amendment right not to!) Section 230 immunizes them from certain legal liabilities from the consequences of hosting other people's content; but it obligates nothing.
  - Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
    Yes. If you are immune due to that the censors lean on your host, your isp, and your bank.
    - crusty 2y ago
      The original post does not clearly specify the source of the infringement judgments. Was it a regulatory body contacting a housing provider? Was it the housing provider proactively policing content on their servers? Not clear to me. Commenting on 230 seems reasonable, although I didn't catch what jurisdiction this hoster or site I owner are in. Commenting on censorship power by signature l strong-arming the connoisseur that facilitate access to the internet seems reasonable too. But why reply to the 230 post with it, like you're refuting their issue. This could just be a different thread.
croes 2y ago
Third party immunity creates a strangers-on-train-loophole.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kittikitti 2y ago
The intention and the application of the law are very far apart. If you strengthen the intention, you're not actually reinforcing it, you're reinforcing the application. It would mainly help further consolidate the power of Big Tech because they're the only ones who can afford to legally apply the law. Section 230 needs to go because people get banned or shadow banned for all types of reasons. What's the point if it doesn't protect MathB.in and freedom of speech? Shouldn't we just start over?
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >Section 230 needs to go because people get banned or shadow banned for all types of reasons. What does people getting banned or shadow-banned have to do with this? Section 230 is about protecting the host of 3rd-party content from liability. Beyond that, the host still has their rights to choose what they want to host, enforce what rules they want to enforce, and ban/shadow-ban whoever they want. With or without Section 230, private companies can still ban you whenever they please, for whatever reason they please. As is their right to do so. If anything, adding additional liability to hosts (via repealing Section 230) will likely make them even more zealous in who they decide to ban.
- Analemma_ 2y ago
  > Section 230 needs to go because people get banned or shadow banned for all types of reasons. What's the point if it doesn't protect MathB.in and freedom of speech? You are yet another person who needs to read the "You Are Wrong About Section 230" TD article, because you're badly misinformed about what it does. Section 230 has nothing whatsoever to do with operators banning users: they can ban or not ban, with or without Section 230. It has basically nothing to do with freedom of speech either. All Section 230 does-- and it's making me crazy that so many millions of people willfully misunderstand this very simple point-- is ensure that admins who choose to moderate face no additional liability compared to those who don't.
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    "You Are Wrong About Section 230": https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
tzs 2y ago
> This is the kind of outcome Section 230 (of US' Communications Decency Act of 1996) was intended to prevent. I'm not so sure about that. Section 230 makes it so that if a user posts something that is illegal or tortious it is the user who is the one that faces charges or a lawsuit, not the forum owner. But that doesn't mean that if you become aware of illegal material on your forum that was posted by a user you can just ignore it. You still have to remove it. It sounds like it is the latter that is taking up too much of their resources.
gunian 2y ago
free society hehe

Kerrick 2y ago

With containerization and cheap cloud instances, people can much more easily deploy their own instance of a service like this such that only they (and maybe their trusted friends) can log in. My wife has a private paste bin that she runs on her own subdomain. There are no concerns about content moderation because all of the content is hers, and traffic is so minimal that one VPS can run a bunch of these little services.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lovich 2y ago
I think reverting to only talking to your small social circle instead of the public at large might be one of those chilling effects the OP mentioned
- dowager_dan99 2y ago
  maybe? but they also feel like completely different use-cases. It would be nice if we could solve the service discoverability problem and the service utilization problem independently. Just like the vast majority of businesses shouldn't be high-growth startups, most resources & communities should be intimate and relatively private.
- Kerrick 2y ago
  The paste bin contents are visible to the public at large. The visibility of the content is no different than if she'd picked a public paste bin service--it just means nobody has to moderate anything because the uploader is the service owner.
eviks 2y ago
> people can much more easily deploy But not easily, so this still won't happen.

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago

If it is right to have a website how far do you want to go? * You are forbidden from turning off a shared server * You are forbidden from removing a colocated server * You are forbidden from disconnecting an ISP customer * You are forbidden from closing a bank account * You are forbidden from refusing payments from this bank People who want to censor you just go further up the chain if they don't like what you're saying.

perihelions 2y ago
Huh? You're really confused. Nothing in the 1st Amendment or Section 230 obligates *private parties* from hosting content they don't like! (Actually, they have an affirmative 1st Amendment right not to!) Section 230 immunizes them from certain legal liabilities from the consequences of hosting other people's content; but it obligates nothing.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
  Yes. If you are immune due to that the censors lean on your host, your isp, and your bank.
  - crusty 2y ago
    The original post does not clearly specify the source of the infringement judgments. Was it a regulatory body contacting a housing provider? Was it the housing provider proactively policing content on their servers? Not clear to me. Commenting on 230 seems reasonable, although I didn't catch what jurisdiction this hoster or site I owner are in. Commenting on censorship power by signature l strong-arming the connoisseur that facilitate access to the internet seems reasonable too. But why reply to the 230 post with it, like you're refuting their issue. This could just be a different thread.

croes 2y ago

Third party immunity creates a strangers-on-train-loophole.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kittikitti 2y ago

The intention and the application of the law are very far apart. If you strengthen the intention, you're not actually reinforcing it, you're reinforcing the application. It would mainly help further consolidate the power of Big Tech because they're the only ones who can afford to legally apply the law. Section 230 needs to go because people get banned or shadow banned for all types of reasons. What's the point if it doesn't protect MathB.in and freedom of speech? Shouldn't we just start over?

ziddoap 2y ago
>Section 230 needs to go because people get banned or shadow banned for all types of reasons. What does people getting banned or shadow-banned have to do with this? Section 230 is about protecting the host of 3rd-party content from liability. Beyond that, the host still has their rights to choose what they want to host, enforce what rules they want to enforce, and ban/shadow-ban whoever they want. With or without Section 230, private companies can still ban you whenever they please, for whatever reason they please. As is their right to do so. If anything, adding additional liability to hosts (via repealing Section 230) will likely make them even more zealous in who they decide to ban.
Analemma_ 2y ago
> Section 230 needs to go because people get banned or shadow banned for all types of reasons. What's the point if it doesn't protect MathB.in and freedom of speech? You are yet another person who needs to read the "You Are Wrong About Section 230" TD article, because you're badly misinformed about what it does. Section 230 has nothing whatsoever to do with operators banning users: they can ban or not ban, with or without Section 230. It has basically nothing to do with freedom of speech either. All Section 230 does-- and it's making me crazy that so many millions of people willfully misunderstand this very simple point-- is ensure that admins who choose to moderate face no additional liability compared to those who don't.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  "You Are Wrong About Section 230": https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

tzs 2y ago

> This is the kind of outcome Section 230 (of US' Communications Decency Act of 1996) was intended to prevent. I'm not so sure about that. Section 230 makes it so that if a user posts something that is illegal or tortious it is the user who is the one that faces charges or a lawsuit, not the forum owner. But that doesn't mean that if you become aware of illegal material on your forum that was posted by a user you can just ignore it. You still have to remove it. It sounds like it is the latter that is taking up too much of their resources.

gunian 2y ago

free society hehe