What Would The Internet Look Like If America Repeals Section 230? (wbur.org) 519
"REVOKE 230!" President Trump tweeted Friday, and NPR reports that the movement to revoke its safeguards "is increasingly becoming a bipartisan consensus... But experts caution that eliminating the legal protections may have unintended consequences for Internet users that extend far beyond Facebook and Twitter."
"We don't think about things like Wikipedia, the Internet Archive and all these other public goods that exist and have a public-interest component that would not exist in a world without 230," said Aaron Mackey, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital civil liberties nonprofit.
Without Section 230, experts argue, sites would have less tolerance for people posting their opinions on YouTube, Reddit, Yelp, Amazon and many other corners of the Internet...
The tech industry, unsurprisingly, is fighting hard to preserve Section 230, said Jeff Kosseff, the author of a book about Section 230, The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet. "The major platforms came into existence because of 230," Kosseff said. "Without 230, their operations would have to be substantially changed." In particular, Facebook, Twitter and Google would likely become aggressive about removing content and may side more often with complaining users, Kosseff said. Mackey with the Electronic Frontier Foundation agrees."It could create a prescreening of every piece of material every person posts and lead to an exceptional amount of moderation and prevention," Mackey said. "What every platform would be concerned about is: 'Do I risk anything to have this content posted to my site?'"
Another possible ripple effect of repealing, Kosseff said, is making it more difficult for whatever company is hoping to emerge as the next big social media company. "It will be harder for them because they will face more liability at the outset," Kosseff said. Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University Law School and co-director of the High Tech Law Institute, said rescinding Section 230 could reduce the number of online platforms that welcome open dialogue.
Without Section 230, experts argue, sites would have less tolerance for people posting their opinions on YouTube, Reddit, Yelp, Amazon and many other corners of the Internet...
The tech industry, unsurprisingly, is fighting hard to preserve Section 230, said Jeff Kosseff, the author of a book about Section 230, The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet. "The major platforms came into existence because of 230," Kosseff said. "Without 230, their operations would have to be substantially changed." In particular, Facebook, Twitter and Google would likely become aggressive about removing content and may side more often with complaining users, Kosseff said. Mackey with the Electronic Frontier Foundation agrees."It could create a prescreening of every piece of material every person posts and lead to an exceptional amount of moderation and prevention," Mackey said. "What every platform would be concerned about is: 'Do I risk anything to have this content posted to my site?'"
Another possible ripple effect of repealing, Kosseff said, is making it more difficult for whatever company is hoping to emerge as the next big social media company. "It will be harder for them because they will face more liability at the outset," Kosseff said. Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University Law School and co-director of the High Tech Law Institute, said rescinding Section 230 could reduce the number of online platforms that welcome open dialogue.
No Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot remains a platform, 3rd parties control (Score:5, Interesting)
No Slashdot... RIP 2020
Nope. Slashdot remains a platform because they are not editing or censoring content, nor are they even affecting its visibility. 3rd party's are rating the content and elevating or diminishing it visibility. Slashdot is not.
Nope, Stratton Oakmont. Nice try (Score:4, Informative)
Nice try, but that doesn't fly. See Stratton Oakmont.
Users did the moderation, the owners of the site are still liable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice try, but that doesn't fly. See Stratton Oakmont. Users did the moderation, the owners of the site are still liable.
Nope. Federal legislation, the CDA, overrides and supersedes that. 230 is going to be rewritten not completely discarded. If you act like a publisher you will no longer be able to claim to be a platform. You will have to act like a platform. Slashdot is in really good shape in that scenario.
Which section of CDA? Section 230! (Score:4, Interesting)
> Nope. Federal legislation, the CDA, overrides and supersedes that.
Yeah, which *section* of the CDA gets rid of Oakmont v Prodigy? Section 230! If section 230 is repealed, we're back at Oakmont.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To summarize:
Me: Without section 230, we'd have Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy - Slashdot is responsible for anything they allow to be posted
You: No we wouldn't, because of the CDA
Me: Section 230 is the part of the CDA you're talking about. If section 230 of CDA were repealed, it would no longer provide safe harbor. We'd be back to Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy
To be clear, when a law is repealed it goes away. Section 230 of the CDA won't protect Slashdot if Section 230 of the CDA os repealed.
Re:Which section of CDA? Section 230! (Score:5, Insightful)
To summarize:
Me: Without section 230, we'd have Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy - Slashdot is responsible for anything they allow to be posted
You: No we wouldn't, because of the CDA
Me: Section 230 is the part of the CDA you're talking about. If section 230 of CDA were repealed, it would no longer provide safe harbor. We'd be back to Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy
That is a very poor summary. Here is a more accurate one:
raymorris: Straw man that won't happen, ie. repeal.
drnb: actual scenario repubs and dems are discussing, ie. modification.
To be clear, when a law is repealed it goes away. Section 230 of the CDA won't protect Slashdot if Section 230 of the CDA os repealed.
Again, a straw man. Its not going to be repealed. Its going to be modified. Modification is one of those incredibly rare things in the universe that both republicans and democrats are agreeing upon. Platforms will be shielded IFF they act like platforms, act like a publisher no shield. That is the likely result.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nope, Stratton Oakmont. Nice try (Score:5, Interesting)
What does "act like a platform" actually mean in your scenario?
Can you block/delete spam?
Can you post warnings next to phishing attacks?
Can you block links to certain websites like goatse?
Can you hide certain content by default?
Can you block certain content entirely, e.g. YouTube's no porn rule?
Can staff have accounts they use to comment on things, as Slashdot editors sometimes do?
Can the ToS have terms like "no harassment"?
I can't really see how the current version of 230 can be improved on but I'm happy to listen to your specific suggestions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Offensive" is intentionally vague so that sites can set their own standards. Like Disney will have very different ideas to Twitter. Otherwise there can be no sites for kids, sites for religions, support groups, anything where the rules are more strict than the law specifically allows for.
Trump's example of the "Russian hoax" is pretty dumb considering that Mueller, the special council he personally assigned, said it was real in his report. The very first page of the report says the Russians helped Trump a
Re: (Score:3)
I look forward to 4chan discovering they can post on every churches forums and there's fuckall the church can do about it.
Oh, yeah there will probably be an exception for that, ok then on Hobby Lobby's forum, hmm better make an exception there too. I'm sure the set of exceptions will be small and apolotical.
BTW, do you know see the asymmetry in adding a box that says 'here's an alternative view' and 'allowing to be posted' w.r.t. Trumps voting claims and Russian interference? I don't care which you beli
Re: (Score:2)
You are only moderating visibility based upon the choice of the readers. The reader chooses at what level to view and read comments, from high to low, the readers choice, the comments are always as visible as the reader chooses.
They are actively creating a new work, based upon the deletion of legal content, the hiding of legal content and the active promotion of content presented falsely in a fraudulent and hence illegal fashion, as being the most popular, the one the majority of people approve, to convinc
Re:Slashdot remains a platform, 3rd parties contro (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to break it to you, but every site deletes content. Including Slashdot. If they didn't they would be overrun by SPAM.
But it's worse than that. Slashdot deletes stuff that isn't SPAM too. Hint: where has all "Remier" drivel gone? Wanna take a guess what happened to it?
What happened is /. previous owners did nothing about it, went broke, and sold out. They allowed grossly off topic posts, so the site was overrun by by personal feuds, NAZI posts, racial slurs - anything but commercial SPAM was allowed from what I can tell. But Apparently people don't want to have to sift through that shit to have a discussion about the topic they clicked on, and so they lost users. Who would have thunk it?
If you every wanted an example of how a deleting posts is necessary ingredient for creating a place people engage in interesting discussions, todays /. is it. I don't know what the previous owners thought they where doing. There are lots of discussion sites out there. They carter for a particular demographic. They all, including 8-chan, curate content, get rid of crap they know won't appeal to that demographic. It starts with SPAM, but goes well beyond it. The fact this happens all the time under your nose, right here, and you apparently have never noticed is mind boggling.
But the way, 230 does not give site owners a lot of "power". They are in life and death fight for readers and posters. It's the readers and posters who have that power now - not individually but in aggregate. Take away 230 other people will have a say via the courts. It will by American style justice - he with the biggest bank has the most say. That's the style of America Trump wants of course - one where he gets a say in what people living in the land of the free are free to say.
Re:No Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, he didn't call all Mexicans rapists, as you try to lead readers to believe. He said ""When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
So, golly. He said that of the people with problems that Mexico is sending (illegally entering the country) some are rapists and some are drug dealers. Do you dispute that? He also said some of those people with problems are, presumably, good people. Do you dispute that?
He absolutely said nothing about Mexicans, in general.
Re:No Slashdot... (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean like the time he said maybe injecting disinfectant would be a good idea and his base started saying 'oh, well he misspoke and was talking about some sort of light treatment', making up something entirely to be not as dumb as what he said, and then having to pivot when he said 'oh, it was sarcasm'.
Also, he literally said " They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.". So yes, he did say Mexicans are rapists with certainty, but conceding that maybe in theory he supposes but not certain that there are good people among all those rapists.
Broadly speaking Trump says far more dumb and/or ill-advised things than any political or prominent business leader. This is not a republican thing, this is specifically a Trump thing. It only reflects poorly upon republicans in that once he actually won, they became unflinchingly loyal to him because he was their guy. Some of them spoke so poorly of him leading up to the nomination and even would take pot shots at him when he was the nominee but they assumed he would lose the general election. Then they suddenly shut the hell up because nominally having a republican in the office was more important than the values they claimed to hold dear that Trump was inconsistent with.
Sure, the left is occasionally guilty of distorting the obvious intent behind his words (e.g. there was the time that he said some people couldn't handle the horrors of the battlefield when discussing PTSD, and folks on the left blew their top when he was actually being quite respectful for a change and saying *no one* should have to deal with those horrors). This is particularly silly since he says *so* much that is blatant that there's no need to go stretching less controversial things to get more.
Won't rescinding 230... (Score:4, Insightful)
...means that most of Trumps tweets would probably be deleted because the sites would now have to? Trump is the very definition of the posts that would have to be deleted.
No, sites would be deterred from deleting (Score:3)
Won't rescinding 230 means that most of Trumps tweets would probably be deleted because the sites would now have to?
No. Keep in mind that both parties are complaining about social media companies acting as publishers but claiming to be a platform. What the legislators are going to do is not eliminate protections for platforms, what they are going to do is only let you claim platform protection IFF you act like a platform. Act like a publisher, ie delete stuff, and you will be a publisher in the eyes of the law.
Re:No, sites would be deterred from deleting (Score:5, Insightful)
Act like a publisher, ie delete stuff, and you will be a publisher in the eyes of the law.
Um, Twitter hasn't deleted anything, they just attached a warning label.
Re:No, sites would be deterred from deleting (Score:5, Informative)
Um, Twitter hasn't deleted anything, they just attached a warning label.
Platforms are supposed to be neutral conduits.
Warning labels are not neutral.
They are making an editorial decision to warn about some things but not other things.
That editorial control makes them a publisher, not a platform.
Re:No, sites would be deterred from deleting (Score:5, Insightful)
Platforms are supposed to be neutral conduits.
Ummm... No. You're thinking of carriers.
The internet is mostly made up of things which are in no way carriers and obviously aren't publishers. It's a new thing that needed different kinds of rules.
Warning labels are not neutral.
What would a neutral warning label look like?
That editorial control makes them a publisher, not a platform.
When the beekeeping forum deletes all your posts about skydiving, are they suddenly now a publisher or are they just deleting spam? Don't be ridiculous. That absurdity would kill every forum and comments section on the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
A "forum" can't delete anything. The content will either be deleted by the forum moderator (a user, not an employee) or by an employee of the platform.
In the first case, it is still a neutral platform.
So you'd be happy with Twitter giving a bunch of mod points to no one but commies, straw feminists, "SJWs" or whatever your boogieman du jour is, as long as they didn't pay them?
I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would happily delete tweets from Trump and his army of Trumpanzees entirely for fre
Re: (Score:3)
No. The right wants everything to be like 8chan, without any restrictions on posting. The people criticizing it from the left (who are just nuts, I don't understand their position at all) ostensibly want more moderation.
(To the extent they want more vigorous antitrust enforcement, that's really a totally separate issue, yet they're not seeing that)
The problem is you can't force moderation, and exposing sites to liability for not moderating enough will absolutely backfire.
Re:No, sites would be deterred from deleting (Score:4, Informative)
Fair enough. But remember, the law already permits and encourages people to moderate viewpoints they don't agree with, if they subjectively find them offensive, which is not hard for people to manage to do.
So I think that your 'correction' is just something that was already implicit in what I was saying.
Also, you probably meant it as some sort of insult or wry political point, but it's not. There is nothing in the least bit wrong with refusing to engage with people you disagree with, or refusing to allow them to hang around you or use your Internet forum. Indeed, these things are protected under the First Amendment freedoms of free speech, free press, and free association, all of which include their negative forms (freedom from having to speak, freedom from having to publish, freedom from having to associate).
So technically correct but kind of a lame effort. Try to do better next time?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The POTUS originating and spreading damaging fake news
"When will they open a Cold Case on the Psycho Joe Scarborough matter in Florida. Did he get away with murder? Some people think so. Why did he leave Congress so quietly and quickly? Isn’t it obvious? What’s happening now? A total nut job!" - DJT lying during the course of malicious rumor making.
Widower, T.J. Klausutis might want to sue for the defamation of the character of his deceased wife. So might Joe Scarborough.
Twitter would not be liable (Score:2)
The POTUS originating and spreading damaging fake news
Would be ignored by twitter as a platform. That way twitter would not be liable. POTUS would be the only liable party.
Keep in mind that both parties are complaining about social media companies acting as publishers but claiming to be a platform. What the legislators are going to do is not eliminate protections for platforms, what they are going to do is only let you claim platform protection IFF you act like a platform.
Re: (Score:2)
a) Hate speech is illegal no matter where it comes from or how it appears online.
b) You could read the tweet in question by pressing a button, it wasn't censored or removed in any way, just a warning attached to it.
Re:Twitter would not be liable (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate speech is illegal no matter where it comes from or how it appears online.
That's objectively incorrect.
Re:Twitter would not be liable (Score:5, Informative)
a) Hate speech is illegal no matter where it comes from or how it appears online.
The Constitution says otherwise. Where in the phrase "no law" do you see "except for hate speech"?
Hate speech laws - United States [wikipedia.org]: The United States does not have hate speech laws, since American courts have repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Won't rescinding 230... (Score:5, Informative)
TL,DR: Trump is a massive idiot and his antics on Twitter have made a laughingstock of the U.S. and the Office of the President, as well as having incited violence and hatred. He should be BANNED from Twitter.
Re:Won't rescinding 230... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is that it's inappropriate for a sitting President to be using so-called 'social media' the way he does in the first place,
You couldn't be further from the truth. The more we know about what elected officials actually think, unfiltered, the better democracy works. If you don't like what he says, vote against him, but you'll be voting based on things he actually said and not on a carefully contrived image created by the gatekeeper media.
Re:Won't rescinding 230... (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people think so.
This means: He (Trump) thinks this -- and probably no one else.
Just like the phrases: (a few among many)
"Many/most people don't/didn't know ..." -- Everyone, except Trump knows, already knew ... ..." -- He (Trump) and/or Fox News is saying ...
"Many people are saying
"Maybe it will work, maybe it won't." -- It won't work.
The common denominator is that either (a) he doesn't know something, but wants to look like he does and/or (b) he wants to put a thought into peoples' heads about an agenda/idea he wants to push to his benefit and/or another's detriment.
Re: (Score:3)
The common denominator is that either (a) he doesn't know something, but wants to look like he does and/or (b) he wants to put a thought into peoples' heads about an agenda/idea he wants to push to his benefit and/or another's detriment.
or (c) He's just realized Twitter could get in the way of his election astroturfing campaign.
It will be TV (Score:2)
That's the whole intent anyway. User input is dangerous. The three networks must regain control
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Good idea... until the service becomes nothing but spam, porn, memes, racism... basically /pol/.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't curate or moderate user content. You can let the users do that themselves (a-la Slashdot). If the hosting service doesn't get involved it does NOT lose 230 protection.
Yes it does. The Stratton Oakmont case that created the need to have section 230 involved users moderating a BBS chat room.
Re: (Score:3)
Looting is wrong. So are jackbooted thugs with badges and guns that choke out and kill someone who didn't deserve to die. So illegal behavior or not at least I understand how they've had quite enough of that shit for decades and decades and finally they're blowing up over it even if their reaction is extreme and wrong. There is no 'right side' to this anymore and it didn't have to be this way. Get rid of
Whoop de doo. (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem solved.
America shooting itself in the foot again.
Offshoring factories turned out to be a bad idea.
Offshoring IT turned out to be a bad idea.
Offshoring the internet has to work right?
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much, with the caveat that it would need to be hosted by partied that never intended to visit the US even to change planes, and it would have to be hosted in a site that was willing to stand up to the US.
Note that foreign sites tend to have their own rules about what content it is legal to host, however. And Iceland, e.g., doesn't have a lot of fat pipes. (Many countries are a lot more hospitable to coverage in a language that is not native to that country.)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much, with the caveat that it would need to be hosted by partied that never intended to visit the US even to change planes, and it would have to be hosted in a site that was willing to stand up to the US.
Note that foreign sites tend to have their own rules about what content it is legal to host, however. And Iceland, e.g., doesn't have a lot of fat pipes. (Many countries are a lot more hospitable to coverage in a language that is not native to that country.)
It would certainly cause a global re-arrangement of CDNs, but that is what they are for. Would probably still be worse for the US than any other country though. Now your content has to be served from somewhere else. Sucks it is so slow.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. let's look for example at YT.
Assume that they do move overseas. This is not a criminal action, like DeBeers vs the DoJ. This is civil. So someone sues and wins. That means that they can attach any assets in the US. Including payment from US companies. Also probably assets in Europe.
That means no US advertiser would do business with them. Which means that they would wind up running ads like those on the more illicit sites eg the one with the model the woman who got Proffesor Paul Frampton in trouble w
Hobbyist websites gone (Score:5, Informative)
Websites will be unable to control the types of conversations on their forums. Stackoverflow would become reddit. Basically it will be impossible for public discourse to occur and the right wing fascists of government will control the narrative, until the ultra-leftists grab it .. so it will stay fucked forever if Section 230 is repealed. Political websites especially will be screwed .. for example a Christian forum can be taken over by atheists. An anti-abortion site can become dominated by pro-abortion.. so the result will be discussion forums won't exist at all. Nobody will be willing to risk being sued or spend money on moderating them .. it won't even be remotely financially possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Websites will be unable to control the types of conversations on their forums.
This is quite a common complaint anyways. I don't see why this would make it any different.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now they can and to limited extents, they actually do. Change the law and they can't in any way whatsoever, unless they do a perfect job of it every time, which is impossible. Or they ban user posting altogether.
Re:Hobbyist websites gone (Score:4, Informative)
Small websites WILL be able to control the conversations on their sites.
No; they'll be liable for everything posted if they moderate anything, no matter how minor. Which means they can't control conversations, or they can't allow conversations. There's no middle ground.
There is not an exception for non-commercial fora. The best you could hope for would be to not be noticed by anyone or not to be worth going after. That's a bad way to operate, and it balkanizes user communities since no one can dare grow.
Re: (Score:3)
The owner of the board will be liable for anything they miss. If you only allow users to moderate for, say, offensive language, you're still liable for every other imaginable category of offense your users cause because you could moderate more, but failed to.
For example, let us suppose we are on such a board, and I were to say that you fellate goats, and that that's untrue and defamatory of your character. The moderators don't know whether or not that's true, and lack the ability to research it effectivel
Re:Hobbyist websites gone (Score:5, Informative)
If somebody posts something about somebody blowing goats, then it gets deleted.
Ah, I didn't realize you had never been on Slashdot before today! You may have noticed that your post is post #60,127,176. You may also have noticed, if you looked for any particularly busy stories, that there are lots of posts that never get removed but could pose a legal risk to the site. And this place isn't even nearly as popular as it used to be, back in the day. Think about how many posts someplace like Reddit gets in a day. It's totally unmanageable, especially since there are so damn many different types of tortious speech, and no real fact-checking ability. (For example, if you really do fellate goats, it's not defamatory, and there's no legal cause to remove it. But who the hell wants to check up on that?)
It's tremendously difficult, so much so that no one actually tries. The lengths that have to be gone through to delete outright bigotry, hate speech, child porn, spam, scams, etc. are such that it's like trying to hold back the tide.
Frankly, your naivety or dishonesty blows goats, and I'm done with you now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, I know that if the site moderates nothing they are safe. (Though not as a common carrier -- that is a totally different legal concept that basically never applies to a mere website)
But DogDude claimed that moderation would still be possible without risking liability. He's wrong.
And while not moderating at all is safe, it's totally impractical; then you can't remove spam, shitposts, malware, etc. No moderation means no moderation for any reason of any content. That sort of thing helped kill Usenet and
Re: (Score:3)
That's obviously not true.
The context of the discussion is focused on a few categories of tortious speech, defamation being chief among them, probably. No one is claiming that the 47 USC 230 safe harbor applies to, say, copyright infringements.
But there is plenty of content that no offline publication would ever print, because they'd get their asses sued off for it, which sites can host safely. The individual users posting it aren't protected, but they're often anonymous and too poor to bother to go after, so they're safe enough.
Websites can't be carriers and aren't publishers either. That's why we have Section 230.
I
230 allows you to moderate (Score:5, Insightful)
You can moderate a forum today because 230 allows you to moderate it without exposing yourself to liability or having to do so in a way that makes everyone perfectly happy.
Suppose I post something about a dispute with Phantomfive, perhaps over a book deal. He says it's false, possibly slander, and wants you to take it down. I want you to leave it up.
I point out that now that people have seen it, if you take it down you are implying it's untrue, which is calling me a liar and slandering me.
If you had no safe harbor, no matter what you decide you are exposing yourself to liability - one of us will want to sue you.
Section 230 is what allows you to moderate a forum without putting yourself at risk.
* I don't actually have any dispute with Phantomfive. I just used Phantomfive as an example because that is someone known to most Slashdotters. Phantomfive is "good people".
Re: (Score:2)
Very true.
Re: (Score:2)
Section 230 says Slashdot is not responsible for (Score:5, Informative)
A quick primer of what Section 230 is:
It makes sense that a newspaper is responsible for the stories they publish. They are responsible for what is in their paper. Prior to section 230, if I attempted to place a classified ad in the newspaper, the newspaper could be held responsible for the content of that ad, because they published it.
Prior to section 230, a content-neutral carrier such as the phone company who does NO filtering was not responsible for the content. That left platforms, online and offline, with a choice between two options:
A. Screen posts and be responsible for the content.
B. Allow all spam, obscenity, calls to violence, etc (like the phone company allows you to say anything you want in a phone call)
Having to choose between those two options sucks.
So section 230 added a third option. Under section 230, message boards like Slashdot, social media platforms like Facebook, etc are allowed to undertake good faith efforts to screen posts containing certain things: obscenity, excessive violence, harassment, and a couple of other categories. Under section 230, good faith efforts to reduce these things do NOT make the platform responsible for the content of all posts.
Repealing 230 would mean Slashdot and other platforms are responsible for whatever we post here, if they undertake any efforts to fight obscenity, etc. For example without 230 they couldn't filter specific words and phrases which indicate the post is an ad for a very weird porn site. Gotta either allow everything, or be responsible for every post that is allowed.
Here is the actual text of the law:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? What if the users are the ones doing the moderation instead of the owners of the platform.....oh wait!!
If self-moderation is the work-around, I'd think the Internet would be much better if it uses a slashdot type moderation system.
Sorry, there's no workaround. In the Stratton Oakmont case that gave rise to the need for the safe harbor, users were volunteering as moderators and the site was held liable for them failing to perfectly moderate things they were not even looking for and couldn't have realistically checked.
Re: (Score:2)
Repealing 230 would mean Slashdot and other platforms are responsible for whatever we post here, if they undertake any efforts to fight obscenity, etc.
Really? What if the users are the ones doing the moderation instead of the owners of the platform.....oh wait!!
If self-moderation is the work-around, I'd think the Internet would be much better if it uses a slashdot type moderation system.
Unfortunately if the mods are incompetent the platform owner is still responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can always apply an engineering solution around a legal problem.
Man, you're dumb. Go read this fantastic essay that might help you to understand how silly you sound: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entr... [sooke.bc.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
> Man, you're dumb
Fyi, starting with that is an excellent way to make it appear you are perhaps less intelligent than you actually are. You may note that when one 1st grader makes such a comment, often enough a more mature first grader comes back with something suggesting that "you're dumb" is how three year olds argue.
I note you didn't follow that up with any cognizant argument whatsoever. I'm kinda dissapointed, because I imagine you probably COULD say something useful or interesting.
> I am a lawye
Re: (Score:2)
Please never argue a case in court. Ever.
Too late! And I've got a good track record!
because I imagine you probably COULD say something useful or interesting.
Sounds like some~one didn't follow the link to a truly interesting little essay. Seriously, you won't be disappointed. Also, there's nothing wrong with calling out a genuinely stupid position.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How is what I said stupid? Apple did it.
No, Apple did it to the extent that the government is allowing them to have done it. If a law is enacted that says that Apple must reengineer iPhones to not be so secure, Apple will either have to comply, flee the country to someplace that will shelter them and let them operate as normal (and probably lose a ton of assets and business opportunities), or various people at Apple start getting arrested for breaking the law. (Also, intelligence agencies may infiltrate Apple and arrange backdoors, perhaps by c
PS - I didn't write the law, I just read it (Score:4, Interesting)
I forgot to include my usual "disclaimer". Every time I explain what the law is on a particular subject, or what a particular statute or case says, somebody gets really upset with me, saying "so you think ... should ...". I'm not saying what the law SHOULD be. I didn't write section 230. I read section 230 and I stated what the law *is*.
I was around and cognizant of the debate when 230 was being passed and implemented through more detailed regulations, but to the best of my memory I didn't participate in the comments on that one. So I get no credit or blame for it. I just know what it says, that's all.
Another related item -
Trump recently issued an executive order directing a federal department to do a report on whether major platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are in fact doing "good faith" screening related to the categories they are allowed to screen for under section 230. For example, if there were emails from Zuckerberg directing Facebook staffers to censor only conservative-leaning posts and NOT mark any Antifa posts as "excessive violence", that would not be good faith screening for excessive violence and would not be within the protections of section 230.
Some headlines and stories have suggested that Trump's order "repeals section 230" or something. That's false. A president does not have the power to repeal a law, no matter how much our last two presidents have wished for that power. The president's order tells his administration to see whether or not the socal media giants are operating within the law.
Lastly -
Having said that my previous post simply tells what the law is, not what I think it should be, I guess now I'll say what I think it should be. I think there are probably some tweaks to 230 that could improve it. I'd love to hear any specific suggestions. Repealing it would be very problematic, in my experience working with people prior to 230, and before it was widely understood by relevant citizens.
Re:PS - I didn't write the law, I just read it (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, if there were emails from Zuckerberg directing Facebook staffers to censor only conservative-leaning posts and NOT mark any Antifa posts as "excessive violence", that would not be good faith screening for excessive violence and would not be within the protections of section 230.
Well, you're making a number of assumptions, but let's say you were right. Zuckerberg could just say that the official policy of Facebook is that conservative posts are offensive and anti-conservative posts are not. And if they moderated posts accordingly and didn't misfilter posts for some other reason (like letting a particular post slide because the user paid a fee to avoid being filtered), then that would be protected under the law.
Having political viewpoints and filtering based on them is fine under 230(c)(2), as long as you really believe the things you don't want on your site are offensive to you.
On the other hand, you could not remove a post as offensive when really you want the user to pay to keep it up and it didn't really offend you; that would be an example of bad faith moderation.
The president's order tells his administration to see whether or not the socal media giants are operating within the law.
No. Trump is too stupid to conceal his motives. He's mainly a) upset that Twitter would post fact checks on his posts, and b) he's being directed by his handlers (he is also too stupid to have an actual agenda aside from corrupt personal enrichment and self-aggrandizement) to attack moderation online because conservatives in the English-speaking world are basically synonymous with wacko hate groups now, and fairly mundane policies about moderating out hate speech and other such shit are affecting them.
I think there are probably some tweaks to 230 that could improve it. I'd love to hear any specific suggestions.
Oh for sure. Repeal subsections (d) (which is pointless) and (e)(5) (which was predicted to be, and then turned out actually was, entirely counter-productive). Otherwise the law is good. The problem is really that lily-livered sites don't use it. Twitter, Facebook, etc., should be moderating a lot more heavily, and the law enables them to, but they don't due to laziness and greed. There's really not a way for the law to force them to do it though; it would violate the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you on subsection d. It probably does very little good. It also probably does little harm, but I'd prefer to not have unnecessary laws.
> > The executive order directs
> No. Trump is too stupid to conceal his motives. He's mainly a) upset
Well yes that's WHY. You seem to be conflating his motive for issuing the order with what the order actually says, though. The order does not say "I am mad because....", it says the commerce department, and specifically the FCC, shall check into whet
Re:PS - I didn't write the law, I just read it (Score:4, Informative)
> Trump can't direct the FCC to do anything
That's a question the courts have struggled with.
Any power the FCC has must derive ultimately from the Constitution. The Constitution says there are three branches of government:
Legistlative - Congress creates law. Headed by Congress based on rules they pass, such as giving the speaker certain powers
Judicial - Courts figure out how the various laws apply to the facts of a specific case. Headed by the Supreme Court
Executive - Enforces the law. Headed by the President.
Congress controls the legistlative branch and can order staffers to do things, such as research an issue and create a report.
SCOTUS controls judicial process and can order judicial branch employees to follow the processes set out by SCOTUS.
The Constitution says the President is the boss of the executive branch, of the people who enforce the law. Prima facie, that includes the FCC. The Constitution also takes pains to separate these three branches and create a balance of powers.
However, with the FCC, Congress purported to create an executive agency, an agency that enforces the law, but is not under the control of the executive branch. It exists outside of the Constitutional framework. It's not at all clear that Congress has the Constitutional power to create government outside of the Constitutional system of three branches. It can well be argued that because the FCC executes the law, it's either under the control of the executive branch as stated in the Constitution, or it unconstitutional and has no legitimate power at all.
Further, the FCC makes law in the form of regulations which are not merely specifying the details of how to comply with a statute passed by Congress - the FCC makrs and changes public policy, a role that the Constitution reserves to Congress. The FCC also holds hearings and imposes penalties in specific cases - a judicial branch function. They also, and primarily, perform executive functions of enforcing the law. The FCC as it operates today totally flies in the face of separation of powers and Constitutional system.
One could argue that we SHOULD have a Constitutional amendment to allow for independent agencies that are not part of any of three branches of government. We don't actually have such an amendment. Specifically, the experience of other countries shows that having politicians in control of the money supply is a very, very bad idea. A horrible idea. It repeatedly leads to economic catastrophe. So the Federal Reserve *needs* to be independent of the politicians, and it is. But we don't have any Constitutional framework to allow for that.
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
Under section 230, message boards like Slashdot, social media platforms like Facebook, etc are allowed to undertake good faith efforts to screen posts containing certain things: obscenity, excessive violence, harassment, and a couple of other categories.
Which allowed category do these examples fall in to:
"Posting hoax political meme on July 20, 2018, specifically a fake message, supposedly from Democrats, that urged men not to vote in the midterm elections). "
"suspended for a tweet attacking Ilhan Omar by accusing her of being "pro-Sharia" and "pro-FGM""
"Suspended for tweets about the fictional character Baby Yoda"
"Banned after tweeting criticism of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer's stay-at-home order and encouraging the state's citizens to violate the directive"
If social media platforms stuck to blocking posts/people within those major categories, I don't think most people would have a problem with it. The issue is that they often have gone far beyond the obviously objectionable and started banning stuff that they just don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
> If social media platforms stuck to blocking posts/people within those major categories, I don't think most people would have a problem with it. The issue is that they often have gone far beyond the obviously objectionable and started banning stuff that they just don't like.
The president has ordered the commerce department to look into whether screening my Facebook and Twitter is in fact limited to the good-faith efforts to address the types of content they are allowed to filter under section 230.
If you
Re: (Score:3)
Thing is, S.230 allows that effectively without limitation:
So, say a site run
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that they often have gone far beyond the obviously objectionable and started banning stuff that they just don't like.
Duh, that's what 'objectionable' means, idiot. It's entirely subjective, a tremendous catch-all, and it's simply what is objectionable to the owners and operators of the site, whatever that should happen to be.
No one cares what you find objectionable, but if you ran your own site, you could moderate it based on your own personal beliefs, and it would be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong.
However, what Trump wants, his motives, is immaterial to the discussion of repealing section 230.
If it was revoked Trump's tweets would disappear (Score:3)
If Twitter didn't have the protections from section 230, they'd likely feel compelled to take down most of his tweets.
...or move (Score:2)
Full Diaper (Score:2, Insightful)
It's worth remembering that this entire "Repeal 230" business was started as an impulsive tantrum by a petulant man-baby. He didn't discuss it with legal experts or the FCC or anyone else. He saw something that displeased him during his daily "executive time" and went storming through the halls like some syphilitic Mad King George zonked on Adderall and everybody around him had to try to appease by doing something that they knew to be foolish (and ultimately ineffective) policy.
And now those that support
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth remembering that this entire "Repeal 230" business was started as an impulsive tantrum by a petulant man-baby.
Politicians have been attacking it in a bi-partisan way for a while [senate.gov], in the case I linked to, they are trying to get allow law enforcement to get through encryption (despite their pleas to "protecting the children").
Re: (Score:2)
Not via an executive order, though.
Re: Full Diaper (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet also very powerful, precisely because it bypasses the legislative process. Executive orders have been subject to slow power-creep for many years.
Re: Full Diaper (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No they don't. They don't give a damn what happens They're going to support him anyway, just because.
I disagree: look at the number of people here who bent over backwards while jumping through hoops to explain why Trump's suggestion of injecting bleach was actually the work of a genius. They believe they are logical people, so no matter how stupid they will attempt to distort reality until supporting Trump becomes the logical choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy fix (Score:2)
There is a very easy fix for this mess... go outside EUA!
Between the risk of losing many of the world market AND having to screen ALL posts and the risk of losing some (or all if they ban the site) EUA market and still doing the same... probably for many companies, leaving EUA is a better option... for others, EUA is too big to lose, but they can try the move and see what happens... maybe in a few years in the future there is a different idiot in the whitehouse and everything returns to normal
The fun fact i
The problem with 230 is it is just too broad (Score:3)
It is Not Donald Trump's Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This comes down to LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY (Score:3)
It makes no sense to hold social media responsible for the content, when content is coming from end users. BUT, social media NEEDS to hold the END USERS responsible. This can ONLY be done IFF the end users are vetted. It is far too expensive for social media to vet end users. As such, we need a vetted digital certificates for end users so that end users are held responsible for what they post, or harass or whatever.
And if we do not hold end users responsible, then we need to start holding social media responsible for controlling their postings.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Since you are one of the most obvious trolls here, you're one to speak! BTW, TFA is about the movement to repeal 230, not the EO...
Re: (Score:3)
It would be filled with personal web sites and moderated message boards.
No message boards. Possibly no personal web sites unless you have your own server. You're just deluding yourself, or you're lying.
I think it would be really, really great, and I hope it happens.
Great. You can start by deleting your Slashdot account, since this place won't be able to continue to exist. If you like the idea so much, why not get an early start and avoid the rush?
Re: (Score:3)
Most users lack the chops to create personal websites. Sites that provide hosting (whether ye olde Geocities and ISPs that provided a few megabytes for a home page, or WordPress or whatever the kids use now) will fold.
Heck, MORE personal web sites existed before 230.
You think that there were more personal sites before the law passed in February 1996 than after? I remind you that Netscape only appeared in late 1994 and Mosaic in 1993. I was around at the time, and had a site, and even participated in the black page / blue ribbon campaign. But there weren'
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
That's why. Somewhere in some tiny corner of some website with three visitors a month will be something that pisses off someone with lawyers.
Oh, and if Stratton Oakmont rings a bell, it's because Wolf of Wall Street was about them. So the irony is extra delicious because its possible the guy posting on Prodigy was telling the truth.
If S.230 goes away, will slashdot delete this post before a lawyer for whatever's left of Stratton Oakmont finds it and sues them over it?
Re: (Score:2)
Moderated message boards are very expensive to run. It would be full of unmoderated message boards too. 230 protects the message boards in between.
Re: (Score:3)
Most personal web sites would go away because the host would become liable for the content of them. Unless you host from your own server, i.e. you just created a big cost barrier and as web traffic heavily declines those costs will keep going up due to reduced economy of scale.
We live in a golden age where hosting is free and everyone can have their say. Okay you have to have your say within certain very permissive rules, but there are people posting very extreme views on YouTube just fine, for free, reachi
No one wants neutral! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not talking people who think Obama's foreign policy was overrated...I'm talking people pushing pro-pedophilia arguments, arguing for race wars, all sorts of random calls for violence.
If you're an open bigot or into conspiracy theories, you're not a conservative, you're an unwell asshole. No one wants you. The world is a better place without you. Stop trying to call yourself a conservative. Hating liberals is not a conservative principle. If you're happy with unnecessary war or government handouts to your community, or gov interfering with tech platforms, like Trump is, you're not a conservative. Stop pretending your views are hindered because you're more conservative than the mainstream media. You're not a conservative, you're not a right-winger. You're just an asshole that hates liberals. No one wants to hear your views.
As soon as you're given the freedom to express yourself, people will just run away. You're not a cool rebel speaking truth to power...you're the asshole that shits in a waterpark and ruins it for everyone. If you feel the world is trying to censor your views, it's because you're an asshole...not because you have a radical dangerous idea that those in power fear.
Re: Trump Isn't Revoking Section 230 (Score:5, Informative)
They can't have it both ways
So it appears that you're totally ignorant of what the law actually says (which is that you definitely get it both ways). Let's see what we can do about that.
All that shit you wrote about neutrality and choices and so forth is garbage. You made it up, or you're repeating lies someone told you; none of it is true. Fucking knock it off. Your reference to 'censoring conservatives' is a good indicator that you're a troll or at best a complete dipshit.
The reality is that the law says two key things:
One, no site or user is treated as the publisher of any material originating from elsewhere. (This is what you referred to as being an 'editor') There are no conditions. There is no requirement of neutrality.
Two, the law deliberately encourages and protects sites and users when they moderate and filter content by removing anything they, in their own subjective good-faith opinion, find offensive. So for example, if I ran Slashdot and I found your posts offensive because they're so stupid and false, I could delete them and face zero repercussions for it other than that perhaps you'd get the message and fuck off. Again, no obligation to be neutral, and in fact it encourages the opposite; having an opinion and taking a stand, and getting rid of crap that you don't want on your site.
The real law can be read here [cornell.edu]. The key provisions are sections (c)(1) and (2).
Now that you're a little wiser, piss off and stop blathering about shit you don't understand.
youa re wrong on 230 (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What Trump is doing is forcing technology companies to make a choice
He's not forcing anyone to do anything. That's delusional. He does not have that power.
He's throwing a tantrum because his feelings got hurt when Twitter called him a liar. He'll yell and scream and rile up his base and we'll all forget about this by Tuesday. This is just like every other all-caps tantrum on Twitter.
They can't claim to be neutral platforms while editing and censoring some content while promoting other content to push their agenda.
Yes they can. Some sites are doing it right now. Trump hasn't done anything to change that because he can't.
See, you don't "give up" section 230 protections by moderating content. We have