5 ms·

Amend Section 230 so that it does not apply to content that is served algorithmically. Social media companies can either allow us to select what content we wan

by slg 11mo ago

Amend Section 230 so that it does not apply to content that is served algorithmically. Social media companies can either allow us to select what content we want to see by giving us a chronological feed of the people/topics we follow or they can serve us content according to some algorithm designed to keep us on their platform longer. The former is neutral and deserves protection, but the latter is editorial. Once they take on that editorial role of deciding what content we see, they should become liable for the content they put in front of us.

ares623 11mo ago
That’s the first reasonable take I’ve seen on this. Thanks for explaining it, I will use it for offline discussions on the subject. It’s been hard to explain.
FloorEgg 11mo ago
This would be a huge step in the right direction.
Manuel_D 11mo ago
So Hacker News should lose section 230 protection? Because the content served here isn't served in chronological order. The front page takes votes into account and displays hotter posts higher in the feed.
- sleight42 11mo ago
  And there's also moderator control? Yup. Accountable.
  - Manuel_D 11mo ago
    So to be clear, anything other than a 4chan-like unmoderated chronological feed results in loss of section 230 protection? Heck, even 4chan wouldn't qualify, because despite considerably looser content rules they still actually do perform moderation.
    - sokoloff 11mo ago
      Most sites that accept user-generated-content are forced to do some level of moderation, lest they become a cesspit of one form or another (CSAM, threats, hate speech, exposing porn to underage users, stolen credit card sales, etc...)
- slg 11mo ago
  Technically sorting by timestamp is an "algorithm" too, so I was just speaking informally rather than drafting the exact language of a piece of legislation. I would define the categories as something like algorithms determined by direct proactive user decisions (following, upvoting, etc) versus algorithms that are determined by other factors (views, watch time, behavior by similar users, etc). Basically it should always be clear why you're being served what you're being served, either because the user chose to see it or because everyone is seeing it. No more nebulous black box algorithms that give every user an experience individually designed to keep them on the platform. This will still impact HN because of stuff like the flame war downranker they use here. However, that doesn't automatically mean HN loses Section 230 protection. HN could respond by simplifying its ranking algorithm to maintain 230 protections.
  - Manuel_D 11mo ago
    So a simple "most viewed in last month" page would trigger a loss of protection? Because that ranking is determined by number of views, rather than a proactive user decision like upvoting.
    - slg 11mo ago
      >So a simple "most viewed in last month" page would trigger a loss of protection? The key word there is "page". I have no problem with news.ycombinator.com/active, but that is a page that a user must proactively seek out. It's not the default or even possible to make it the default. Every time a user visits it, it is because they decided to visit it. The page is also the same for everyone who visits it.
      - Manuel_D 11mo ago
        To be clear, even the front page of Hacker News is not just a simple question of upvotes. Views, comments, time since posting, political content down ranking, etc. all at a factor in the ordering of posts.
  - rafabulsing 11mo ago
- ryandrake 11mo ago
  This is an unpopular opinion here, but I think in general the whole "immunity for third-party content" thing in 230 was a big mistake overall. If you're a web site that exercises editorial control over the content you publish (such as moderating, manually curating, algorithmically curating, demoting or promoting individual contents, and so on), then you have already shown that you are the ones controlling the content that gets published, not end users. So you should take responsibility for what you publish. You shouldn't be able to hide behind "But it was a third party end user who gave it to me!" You've shown (by your moderation practices) that you are the final say in what gets posted, not your users. So you should stand behind the content that you are specifically allowing. If a web site makes a good faith effort to moderate things away that could get them in trouble, then they shouldn't get in trouble. And if they have a policy of not moderating or curating, then they should be treated like a dumb pipe, like an ISP. They shouldn't be able to have their cake (exercise editorial control) and eat it too (enjoy liability protection over what they publish).
  - bostik 11mo ago
    The thing that's missing is the difference between a unsolicited external content (ie. pay-for-play stuff) and directly user-supplied content. If you're doing editorial decisions, you should be treated like a syndicator. Yep, that means vetting the ads you show, paid propaganda that you accept to publish, and generally having legal and financial liability for the outcomes. User-supplied content needs moderation too, but with them you have to apply different standards. Prefiltering what someone else can post on your platform makes you a censor. You have to do some to prevent your system from becoming a Nazi bar or an abuse demo reel, but beyond that the users themselves should be allowed to say what they want to see and in what order of preference. Section 230 needs to protect the latter. The thing I would have liked to see long time ago is for the platforms / syndicators to have obligation to notify their users who have been subjected to any kind of influence operations. Whether that's political pestering, black propaganda or even out-and-out "classic" advertising campaign, should make no difference.
  - Manuel_D 11mo ago
    Moderating and ranking content is distinct from editorial control. Editorial control refers to editing the actual contents of posts. Sites that exercise editorial control are liable for their edits. For instance if a user posts "Joe Smith is not a criminal" and the website operators delete the word "not", then the company can be held liable for defaming Joe Smith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Application_and_limits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Application_and_li...
- erentz 11mo ago
  Can’t you just limit scope for section 230 by revenue or users? E.g. it only applies to companies with revenue <$10m. Or services with <10,000 active users. This allows blogs and small forums to continue as is, but once you’re making meaningful money or have a meaningful user base you become responsible for what you’re publishing.
- armada651 11mo ago
  I think the biggest problem is when we're all served a uniquely personalized feed. Everyone on Hacker News gets the same front page, but on Facebook users get one specifically tailored to them. If Hacker News filled their front page with hate speech and self-harm tutorials there would be public outcry. But Facebook can serve that to people on their timeline and no one bats an eye, because Facebook can algorithmically serve that content only to people who engage with it.
worik 11mo ago
They could use transparent adjustable algorithms I would like to tweak my own feed
parineum 11mo ago
Chronological is an algorithm
techblueberry 11mo ago
Yeah, I wonder if the rules should basically state something like everything must be topical and you must opt in to certain topics (adult, politics, etc)People can request recommendations but they must be requested; no accidental pro-Ana content. If you want to allow hate speech fine, but people have to opt in to every offensive category/slur explicitly. (We can call it “potentially divisive” for all the “one persons hate speech is another persons love rap” folks or whatever.
phyzix5761 11mo ago
Go after the specific companies and executives you believe are doing wrong. Blanket regulations raise costs for smaller competitors and end up entrenching giants like Meta, Google, and Apple because they can afford compliance while smaller competitors can’t. These rules are a big reason the largest firms are more dominant than ever and have become, effectively, monopolies in their markets. And the irony is that many of these regulations are influenced or supported by the big companies themselves, since a small "investment" in shaping the rules helps them secure even more market share.

by slg 11mo ago

ares623 11mo ago

That’s the first reasonable take I’ve seen on this. Thanks for explaining it, I will use it for offline discussions on the subject. It’s been hard to explain.

FloorEgg 11mo ago

This would be a huge step in the right direction.

Manuel_D 11mo ago

So Hacker News should lose section 230 protection? Because the content served here isn't served in chronological order. The front page takes votes into account and displays hotter posts higher in the feed.

sleight42 11mo ago
And there's also moderator control? Yup. Accountable.
- Manuel_D 11mo ago
  So to be clear, anything other than a 4chan-like unmoderated chronological feed results in loss of section 230 protection? Heck, even 4chan wouldn't qualify, because despite considerably looser content rules they still actually do perform moderation.
  - sokoloff 11mo ago
    Most sites that accept user-generated-content are forced to do some level of moderation, lest they become a cesspit of one form or another (CSAM, threats, hate speech, exposing porn to underage users, stolen credit card sales, etc...)
slg 11mo ago
Technically sorting by timestamp is an "algorithm" too, so I was just speaking informally rather than drafting the exact language of a piece of legislation. I would define the categories as something like algorithms determined by direct proactive user decisions (following, upvoting, etc) versus algorithms that are determined by other factors (views, watch time, behavior by similar users, etc). Basically it should always be clear why you're being served what you're being served, either because the user chose to see it or because everyone is seeing it. No more nebulous black box algorithms that give every user an experience individually designed to keep them on the platform. This will still impact HN because of stuff like the flame war downranker they use here. However, that doesn't automatically mean HN loses Section 230 protection. HN could respond by simplifying its ranking algorithm to maintain 230 protections.
- Manuel_D 11mo ago
  So a simple "most viewed in last month" page would trigger a loss of protection? Because that ranking is determined by number of views, rather than a proactive user decision like upvoting.
  - slg 11mo ago
    >So a simple "most viewed in last month" page would trigger a loss of protection? The key word there is "page". I have no problem with news.ycombinator.com/active, but that is a page that a user must proactively seek out. It's not the default or even possible to make it the default. Every time a user visits it, it is because they decided to visit it. The page is also the same for everyone who visits it.
    - Manuel_D 11mo ago
      To be clear, even the front page of Hacker News is not just a simple question of upvotes. Views, comments, time since posting, political content down ranking, etc. all at a factor in the ordering of posts.
- rafabulsing 11mo ago
ryandrake 11mo ago
This is an unpopular opinion here, but I think in general the whole "immunity for third-party content" thing in 230 was a big mistake overall. If you're a web site that exercises editorial control over the content you publish (such as moderating, manually curating, algorithmically curating, demoting or promoting individual contents, and so on), then you have already shown that you are the ones controlling the content that gets published, not end users. So you should take responsibility for what you publish. You shouldn't be able to hide behind "But it was a third party end user who gave it to me!" You've shown (by your moderation practices) that you are the final say in what gets posted, not your users. So you should stand behind the content that you are specifically allowing. If a web site makes a good faith effort to moderate things away that could get them in trouble, then they shouldn't get in trouble. And if they have a policy of not moderating or curating, then they should be treated like a dumb pipe, like an ISP. They shouldn't be able to have their cake (exercise editorial control) and eat it too (enjoy liability protection over what they publish).
- bostik 11mo ago
  The thing that's missing is the difference between a unsolicited external content (ie. pay-for-play stuff) and directly user-supplied content. If you're doing editorial decisions, you should be treated like a syndicator. Yep, that means vetting the ads you show, paid propaganda that you accept to publish, and generally having legal and financial liability for the outcomes. User-supplied content needs moderation too, but with them you have to apply different standards. Prefiltering what someone else can post on your platform makes you a censor. You have to do some to prevent your system from becoming a Nazi bar or an abuse demo reel, but beyond that the users themselves should be allowed to say what they want to see and in what order of preference. Section 230 needs to protect the latter. The thing I would have liked to see long time ago is for the platforms / syndicators to have obligation to notify their users who have been subjected to any kind of influence operations. Whether that's political pestering, black propaganda or even out-and-out "classic" advertising campaign, should make no difference.
- Manuel_D 11mo ago
  Moderating and ranking content is distinct from editorial control. Editorial control refers to editing the actual contents of posts. Sites that exercise editorial control are liable for their edits. For instance if a user posts "Joe Smith is not a criminal" and the website operators delete the word "not", then the company can be held liable for defaming Joe Smith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Application_and_limits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230#Application_and_li...
erentz 11mo ago
Can’t you just limit scope for section 230 by revenue or users? E.g. it only applies to companies with revenue <$10m. Or services with <10,000 active users. This allows blogs and small forums to continue as is, but once you’re making meaningful money or have a meaningful user base you become responsible for what you’re publishing.
armada651 11mo ago
I think the biggest problem is when we're all served a uniquely personalized feed. Everyone on Hacker News gets the same front page, but on Facebook users get one specifically tailored to them. If Hacker News filled their front page with hate speech and self-harm tutorials there would be public outcry. But Facebook can serve that to people on their timeline and no one bats an eye, because Facebook can algorithmically serve that content only to people who engage with it.

worik 11mo ago

They could use transparent adjustable algorithms I would like to tweak my own feed

parineum 11mo ago

Chronological is an algorithm

techblueberry 11mo ago

Yeah, I wonder if the rules should basically state something like everything must be topical and you must opt in to certain topics (adult, politics, etc)People can request recommendations but they must be requested; no accidental pro-Ana content. If you want to allow hate speech fine, but people have to opt in to every offensive category/slur explicitly. (We can call it “potentially divisive” for all the “one persons hate speech is another persons love rap” folks or whatever.

phyzix5761 11mo ago

Go after the specific companies and executives you believe are doing wrong. Blanket regulations raise costs for smaller competitors and end up entrenching giants like Meta, Google, and Apple because they can afford compliance while smaller competitors can’t. These rules are a big reason the largest firms are more dominant than ever and have become, effectively, monopolies in their markets. And the irony is that many of these regulations are influenced or supported by the big companies themselves, since a small "investment" in shaping the rules helps them secure even more market share.