5 ms·

>The point is that the moral hazard created by sec 230 is precisely what has allowed the centralized social media industry to grow to the point it has. That's

>The point is that the moral hazard created by sec 230 is precisely what has allowed the centralized social media industry to grow to the point it has. That's exactly the opposite of what Section 230 has done. Section 230 doesn't stop anyone from suing folks who defame or otherwise break the law. Rather, it specifies that those who say such things are the proper target, not the platforms that host such third-party speech. And that's the important point. Section 230 covers third-party speech. Because litigation is expensive. As such, it mostly protects the little guy who doesn't have the resources to fight tens, hundreds or thousands of lawsuits because some folks don't like the restaurant/movie reviews or opinions about the quality of book plots or political speech or the Epstein Files or a myriad of other things that folks don't like and wish people would shut up about. Nothing stops an aggrieved part from suing an individual for the things that individual says. But Section 230 says you can't sue the platform (say the website, Matrix or XMPP server you personally host) for the speech of a third-party who uses that platform. In the absence of Section 230, huge, deep-pocketed companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, et. al can pay for legions of lawyers to fight such lawsuits. Do you have such deep pockets? Not all Internet content exists on those huge, deep-pocketed platforms. Many useful and interesting sites hosted by individuals or small businesses exist, but would be put out of business in a week if Section 230 didn't exist. Getting rid of Section 230 would only cement the huge platforms' dominance and make them more unaccountable and powerful. Is that your goal? Not saying it is, but it's important to think through the impact of Section 230 beyond the (false and misleading) pronouncements of those who want to control you, your speech and the means of disseminating that speech.

mindslight 8mo ago
I understand the mechanism. I agree that removing section 230 today would have an even more centralizing effect. We've already got huge tech companies that would happily shoulder such liability, and lots of small sites that would find themselves in an uncomfortable position. My point was that if we never had section 230 to begin with, then we would have kept the strong incentive against setting up sites revolving around centralizing speech in the first place. There would have been more emphasis on protocols, and keeping communication under the control of the person speaking.
- nobody9999 8mo ago
  >My point was that if we never had section 230 to begin with, then we would have kept the strong incentive against setting up sites revolving around centralizing speech in the first place. Where did you get that idea? Section 230 never provided any preference or privilege to large organizations over small ones. In fact, it did exactly the opposite for reasons I discussed. You say that without Section 230: ...lots of small sites that would find themselves in an uncomfortable position. That doesn't even come close to covering it. Without Section 230, your aunt would take down her knitting pattern discussion website/chat room/mailing list/whatever within half a day, with whoever it was posting something objectionable (or just off topic) and when your aunt deletes it, file a lawsuit claiming censorship. How long is your aunt going to keep the completely free and volunteer site up when she has to pay lawyers $5-10K every week? And if she doesn't delete it, continue to flood the site with garbage until it's unusable, turning a knitting discussion site into 4/8chan. All while doing nothing to stop the big boys from creating a dystopian hellhole because they have legions of lawyers on staff. In fact, without Section 230, $BigCorp and/or other bad actors wouldn't even need to buy out their competition or wage costly efforts to destroy them, just post oceans of objectionable/off topic stuff, sue if it's taken down or wait for it to go under because its awash in garbage they posted there to make it unusable. If we never had, or got rid of Section 230, your preferred candidate or issue advocacy group could trivially be taken down through these tactics, stifling free expression. Think fake DMCA take downs, but without recourse except through $500/hour lawyers and the courts. Not sure where you got the idea that Section 230 ever was some sort of "giveaway" to big companies to encourage centralization. It was not, and even today it primarily protects the little guy, just as it did 30 years ago. Do you have your mind made up and no amount of actual evidence will change it? If not, feel free to check out the following: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46751#_Toc155275791 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46751#_Toc155275791 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod.... 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... https://www.propublica.org/article/nsu-section-230 https://www.propublica.org/article/nsu-section-230 https://theconversation.com/law-that-built-the-internet-turns-30-a-legal-expert-explains-what-would-happen-if-efforts-to-repeal-section-230-succeed-253326 https://theconversation.com/law-that-built-the-internet-turn... There's lots more of that to be found, but don't believe me. Check it out for yourself. Thanks to Section 230, among other things, you can.

mindslight 8mo ago

I understand the mechanism. I agree that removing section 230 today would have an even more centralizing effect. We've already got huge tech companies that would happily shoulder such liability, and lots of small sites that would find themselves in an uncomfortable position. My point was that if we never had section 230 to begin with, then we would have kept the strong incentive against setting up sites revolving around centralizing speech in the first place. There would have been more emphasis on protocols, and keeping communication under the control of the person speaking.

nobody9999 8mo ago
>My point was that if we never had section 230 to begin with, then we would have kept the strong incentive against setting up sites revolving around centralizing speech in the first place. Where did you get that idea? Section 230 never provided any preference or privilege to large organizations over small ones. In fact, it did exactly the opposite for reasons I discussed. You say that without Section 230: ...lots of small sites that would find themselves in an uncomfortable position. That doesn't even come close to covering it. Without Section 230, your aunt would take down her knitting pattern discussion website/chat room/mailing list/whatever within half a day, with whoever it was posting something objectionable (or just off topic) and when your aunt deletes it, file a lawsuit claiming censorship. How long is your aunt going to keep the completely free and volunteer site up when she has to pay lawyers $5-10K every week? And if she doesn't delete it, continue to flood the site with garbage until it's unusable, turning a knitting discussion site into 4/8chan. All while doing nothing to stop the big boys from creating a dystopian hellhole because they have legions of lawyers on staff. In fact, without Section 230, $BigCorp and/or other bad actors wouldn't even need to buy out their competition or wage costly efforts to destroy them, just post oceans of objectionable/off topic stuff, sue if it's taken down or wait for it to go under because its awash in garbage they posted there to make it unusable. If we never had, or got rid of Section 230, your preferred candidate or issue advocacy group could trivially be taken down through these tactics, stifling free expression. Think fake DMCA take downs, but without recourse except through $500/hour lawyers and the courts. Not sure where you got the idea that Section 230 ever was some sort of "giveaway" to big companies to encourage centralization. It was not, and even today it primarily protects the little guy, just as it did 30 years ago. Do you have your mind made up and no amount of actual evidence will change it? If not, feel free to check out the following: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46751#_Toc155275791 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46751#_Toc155275791 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod.... 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... https://www.propublica.org/article/nsu-section-230 https://www.propublica.org/article/nsu-section-230 https://theconversation.com/law-that-built-the-internet-turns-30-a-legal-expert-explains-what-would-happen-if-efforts-to-repeal-section-230-succeed-253326 https://theconversation.com/law-that-built-the-internet-turn... There's lots more of that to be found, but don't believe me. Check it out for yourself. Thanks to Section 230, among other things, you can.