Section 230 discussion

[SydneyCarton 48,110]

I mean, am I wrong in hoping he gets 230 repealed? Terrible news for surly but wonderful news for america

[Pasken 1,309]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, am I wrong in hoping he gets 230 repealed? Terrible news for surly but wonderful news for america

How in the world would it be good for America?

[Smax 3,800]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, am I wrong in hoping he gets 230 repealed? Terrible news for surly but wonderful news for america

No and why is a communications act in a national defense bill....

[Walden Ponderer 12,639]

1 minute ago, Smax said:

No and why is a communications act in a national defense bill....

No he's not wrong, or no it's not wonderful news?  As to why it's in a defense bill, because politics, duh.

Which is why it doesn't matter whether it's repealed or not, of course. It's toothless with a vile government, and unnecessary with a good one. Focusing on the policy instead of the politicians is getting lost in the weeds -- our nation is currently in the shitter because of a serious lack of character (both collective and personal), not because of whose piece of paper is currently the governing document.

[SydneyCarton 48,110]

23 minutes ago, Pasken said:

How in the world would it be good for America?

Social media would be forced to moderate the comments and content for fear of suit. It would basically eliminate the spread of misinformation and lies on every major internet platform. No more QAnon bullshit easily attainable by stupids, olds, and stupid olds. That seems like a benefit. 

[TXSG8R 3,362]

3 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, am I wrong in hoping he gets 230 repealed? Terrible news for surly but wonderful news for america

 

16 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Social media would be forced to moderate the comments and content for fear of suit. It would basically eliminate the spread of misinformation and lies on every major internet platform. No more QAnon bullshit easily attainable by stupids, olds, and stupid olds. That seems like a benefit. 

Yea, you’d be wrong. Losing 230 would require all content to be moderated, which would break most content oriented sites and apps.  Twitter can’t hire enough people to moderate the content on it, so you wouldn’t get a “cleaner” Twitter like you are expecting, you would likely lose Twitter completely. Surly would no longer be a real time thing, because mods would have to review and approve every post. I don’t think mods signed up for that level of effort, so Surly would likely die off too. No site operator is willing to be liable for what random idiots post. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,415]

14 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

 

Yea, you’d be wrong. Losing 230 would require all content to be moderated, which would break most content oriented sites and apps.  Twitter can’t hire enough people to moderate the content on it, so you wouldn’t get a “cleaner” Twitter like you are expecting, you would likely lose Twitter completely. Surly would no longer be a real time thing, because mods would have to review and approve every post. I don’t think mods signed up for that level of effort, so Surly would likely die off too. No site operator is willing to be liable for what random idiots post. 

Maybe then the internet could go back to what it was meant to be, cat facts and photos of my nieces. 

[immamac 42,864]

12 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

 

Yea, you’d be wrong. Losing 230 would require all content to be moderated, which would break most content oriented sites and apps.  Twitter can’t hire enough people to moderate the content on it, so you wouldn’t get a “cleaner” Twitter like you are expecting, you would likely lose Twitter completely. Surly would no longer be a real time thing, because mods would have to review and approve every post. I don’t think mods signed up for that level of effort, so Surly would likely die off too. No site operator is willing to be liable for what random idiots post. 

Surly is actually pretty alright if 230 gets repealed, more moderation would be necessary on some of the more edgy posts. However think of this - how much legal trouble have any of you gotten in from what you've posted here? It protects us from the suit being brought on US and YOU not just YOU. 

Twitter and FB know they are doing fucked up anti-democratic things by allowing nonsense on their platforms (I mean look at parler, straight up monetizing idiocracy). This would certainly destroy some of the virility and impact of those companies and change the way those platforms work. However, sports twitter would be the same, sharing your family photos would be the same etc etc. Section 230 has let places like the chan boards exist as platforms instead of having to worry about the people posting psychotic shit. 

Twitter and FB need to be destroyed, they aren't productive to society at all and they are not responsible as platform providers at all because they are trying to maximize revenue not social utility. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

18 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

If there is a God in heaven and if he loves me Trump will be de-platformed on Twitter on January 20.

 

The good news is there’s a God in heaven.  The bad news is he hates us all so so bad.  

[SydneyCarton 48,110]

19 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

 

Yea, you’d be wrong. Losing 230 would require all content to be moderated, which would break most content oriented sites and apps.  Twitter can’t hire enough people to moderate the content on it, so you wouldn’t get a “cleaner” Twitter like you are expecting, you would likely lose Twitter completely. Surly would no longer be a real time thing, because mods would have to review and approve every post. I don’t think mods signed up for that level of effort, so Surly would likely die off too. No site operator is willing to be liable for what random idiots post. 

While I appreciate your take, and aspects might be true, I think at worst this is a legitimate debate to be had, and I don't think it's as cut and dry as you seem to think. It's not "impossible."

That being said, there would be major ramifications, and there would no doubt me major sacrifices many of us would have to make for, what at the end of the day, is generally several forms of distraction or amusement. Sacrifices often need to be made for the better of society, or we can sit here in our happy  comfortable place while Rome burns. 

I think a long, serious, and really earnest discussion needs to take place on repealing 230. If that means twitter doesn't exist (which I don't believe to be the case at all), then so be it. But what I would expect to happen is Twitter to implement a very harsh 1 strike rule that starts with months of suspension. People would get the fucking idea, and quick. 

[mdmost 43,004]

That hashtag of diaperdon trending on Twitter really must've chapped his fat ass. 

[TXSG8R 3,362]

1 minute ago, immamac said:

Surly is actually pretty alright if 230 gets repealed, more moderation would be necessary on some of the more edgy posts. However think of this - how much legal trouble have any of you gotten in from what you've posted here? It protects us from the suit being brought on US and YOU not just YOU. 

Twitter and FB know they are doing fucked up anti-democratic things by allowing nonsense on their platforms (I mean look at parler, straight up monetizing idiocracy). This would certainly destroy some of the virility and impact of those companies and change the way those platforms work. However, sports twitter would be the same, sharing your family photos would be the same etc etc. Section 230 has let places like the chan boards exist as platforms instead of having to worry about the people posting psychotic shit. 

Twitter and FB need to be destroyed, they aren't productive to society at all and they are not responsible as platform providers at all because they are trying to maximize revenue not social utility. 

If I come in and post something illegal, you would be liable without 230 protections.  It opens the door to a new form of DDOS through simple posts.  Keep spamming illegal shit, you have to stop real time posts and moderate all content, your shit is broken.  There are certainly negative effects with 230, just like there are negative effects to freedom of speech.  The right wants to repeal 230 because they think it will help them avoid moderation and/or allow them to use their favorite tool, litigation, to strong arm content providers.  Its a nuclear option that will lead to most real-time content being deemed not worth the trouble by most operators.  

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

3 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, am I wrong in hoping he gets 230 repealed? Terrible news for surly but wonderful news for america

It would be the pretty immediate death of Twitter and Facebook, which I think would be a good thing.  It would also kill off probably this place and a number of other benign or actually good things on the internet (hobby forums, etc.).

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

11 minutes ago, immamac said:

Surly is actually pretty alright if 230 gets repealed, more moderation would be necessary on some of the more edgy posts. However think of this - how much legal trouble have any of you gotten in from what you've posted here? It protects us from the suit being brought on US and YOU not just YOU. 

Twitter and FB know they are doing fucked up anti-democratic things by allowing nonsense on their platforms (I mean look at parler, straight up monetizing idiocracy). This would certainly destroy some of the virility and impact of those companies and change the way those platforms work. However, sports twitter would be the same, sharing your family photos would be the same etc etc. Section 230 has let places like the chan boards exist as platforms instead of having to worry about the people posting psychotic shit. 

Twitter and FB need to be destroyed, they aren't productive to society at all and they are not responsible as platform providers at all because they are trying to maximize revenue not social utility. 

I think you might have to close it to the public, members only, and have a pretty salty waiver of liability for the site.  

[SydneyCarton 48,110]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It would be the pretty immediate death of Twitter and Facebook, which I think would be a good thing.  It would also kill off probably this place and a number of other benign or actually good things on the internet (hobby forums, etc.).

Maybe. Lets take this as face value as true, for the time being. And lets ignore the concept that there's a ton of tweaking that could be done to the laws (unlikely in this environment) to make it work as desired. Table that.

If everyone here is remotely serious about society being on a bullet train to ruin, and  they think social media disinformation and dissemination is a giant key component...is the debate worth having or removing it for the better of society as a whole? Somehow our parents managed to exist without these things. I'd argue that it would put a greater focus on local community as well. That's a big concept. But I mean, at this point, I think I'd dump all the shit along with all the things that are truly wonderful about internet forums and boards.

[SydneyCarton 48,110]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think you might have to close it to the public, members only, and have a pretty salty waiver of liability for the site.  

 

I mean, you're telling me we can cull some shit from the herd at the same time?

[immamac 42,864]

6 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

If I come in and post something illegal, you would be liable without 230 protections.  It opens the door to a new form of DDOS through simple posts.  Keep spamming illegal shit, you have to stop real time posts and moderate all content, your shit is broken.  There are certainly negative effects with 230, just like there are negative effects to freedom of speech.  The right wants to repeal 230 because they think it will help them avoid moderation and/or allow them to use their favorite tool, litigation, to strong arm content providers.  Its a nuclear option that will lead to most real-time content being deemed not worth the trouble by most operators.  

shared liability my friend. You would also be liable unless you are forgetting that fact. 

Platforms that enable illegal things should be illegal. WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?!!?!?!!!?!

Actually having to moderate your platform. OH NO WHAT WOULD WE DO! probably fucking moderate more.

[Captainant 27,680]

1) go make a section 230 thread

2) if sec230 is repealed, copyright holder abuse of platforms will be next-level and the internet as we know it will go away in favor of a corporately-moderated model. Think DMCA notices are bad now? Hoo buddy

3) why the fuck is a communications act amendment being included in a defense authorization act? This is dumb shit and we are all worse for you suggesting it's a good idea, Syd

[High Plains Drifter 11,050]

 

 

Sorry guys, but I'd sacrifice The Surl if it meant fb and twitter and parler dies as well.

 

Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

 

[Francisco 2.0 32,395]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It would be the pretty immediate death of Twitter and Facebook, which I think would be a good thing.  It would also kill off probably this place and a number of other benign or actually good things on the internet (hobby forums, etc.).

They need reeled in, for sure.  Eliminating Section 230 would be a horrible way to do it.

But President Shitstick has no idea that would be the endgame, and he would be effectively shutting off his megaphone.

So, for that reason alone, I'm changing my mind.  230 has to go.

 

 

 

[Walden Ponderer 12,639]

29 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Maybe then the internet could go back to what it was meant to be, cat facts and photos of my nieces. 

How old are your nieces? I ask, because the photos don't appear to be showing up.

[SydneyCarton 48,110]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

1) go make a section 230 thread

2) if sec230 is repealed, copyright holder abuse of platforms will be next-level and the internet as we know it will go away in favor of a corporately-moderated model. Think DMCA notices are bad now? Hoo buddy

3) why the fuck is a communications act amendment being included in a defense authorization act? This is dumb shit and we are all worse for you suggesting it's a good idea, Syd

You're the second person who seems to have made a connection to a communications bill being logjammed into a defense bill, as if that's something I think is the good idea. Pork is fucking stupid. Period. 

I'm talking entirely about the idea that 230 gets repealed, however it may be. I'd prefer it to be done independently. 

Now, that being said, as you can see from this thread, there's obviously differing opinions, so it's hardly the slam dunk horrible idea you seem to think it is to many. You're right, there should probably be a thread. I have yet to see a compelling argument that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. 

[Neonmoon 38,129]

SIAP

Quote

• Over 25 PPP loans worth more than $3.65 million were given to businesses with addresses at Trump and Kushner real estate properties, paying rent to those owners. Fifteen of the properties self-reported that they only kept one job, zero jobs or did not report a number at all.
• The loans to Trump and Kushner properties included a $2,164,543 loan to the Triomphe Restaurant Corp., located at Trump International Hotel & Tower in New York City. The company reported the money didn’t go to keeping any jobs. It later closed.
• A company called LB City Inc, which is located at Kushner’s Bungalow Hotel in Long Branch, NJ, received a loan for $505,552.50 that it used to keep 155 jobs.
• Two tenants at 725 5th Avenue, Trump Tower received more than $100,000 and only kept three jobs.
• Four tenants at the Kushner-owned 666 5th Avenue combined received more than $204,000, and only retained 6 jobs

 

[TXSG8R 3,362]

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

shared liability my friend. You would also be liable unless you are forgetting that fact. 

Platforms that enable illegal things should be illegal. WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?!!?!?!!!?!

Actually having to moderate your platform. OH NO WHAT WOULD WE DO! probably fucking moderate more.

Yes, but its much easier to shut down your website than find random internet guy posting through a VPN.  Like Twicehorn said, if you accept random people, you run the risk of being abused.  If you decide to restrict access, you've already reduced content.  Are you going to require SSN, DLs, some other kind of identifier that someone smart can still work around?  The website or app is a fixed target.  Posters will always be harder to nail down, so the former will always bear the brunt of any legal action without 230 protections.  

Ant is dead on with the comparison to DCMA abuse.  The operator will bear the brunt of any legal actions.  Step one will be serving the site with a violation notice, then requesting the site turn over the offender's information.  Cant find johnny internets because he fed you a fake SSN, DL, whatever?  Too bad, I guess Surly gets to eat the legal problems.  

Repealing 230 will have people screaming that leopards ate their face once they realize the full impacts of that decision.  

 

[Captainant 27,680]

9 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I have yet to see a compelling argument that the juice isn't worth the squeeze

For one, it's an overly broad measure to implement because "fuck Facebook and Twitter". As someone who makes a living thanks to the internet, I'm not real big about the rules of the road being changed for everyone to address edge cases of bad behavior. 

I'd much rather see rules/legislation around microtargetted advertising and data collection, ideally something like a US-GDPR. That measure alone would break FB and TW's business models but not flip the table over for everyone else. Not to mention ya know, us normal folks getting privacy by default back. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Captainant

[immamac 42,864]

4 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Yes, but its much easier to shut down your website than find random internet guy posting through a VPN.  Like Twicehorn said, if you accept random people, you run the risk of being abused.  If you decide to restrict access, you've already reduced content.  Are you going to require SSN, DLs, some other kind of identifier that someone smart can still work around?  The website or app is a fixed target.  Posters will always be harder to nail down, so the former will always bear the brunt of any legal action without 230 protections.  

Ant is dead on with the comparison to DCMA abuse.  The operator will bear the brunt of any legal actions.  Step one will be serving the site with a violation notice, then requesting the site turn over the offender's information.  Cant find johnny internets because he fed you a fake SSN, DL, whatever?  Too bad, I guess Surly gets to eat the legal problems.  

Repealing 230 will have people screaming that leopards ate their face once they realize the full impacts of that decision.  

 

You would already be fucking banned if section 230 didn't exist. How's that for a dose of reality? 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

Every one of us is judgment proof. Surly is fucked. 

[SydneyCarton 48,110]

16 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Yes, but its much easier to shut down your website than find random internet guy posting through a VPN.  Like Twicehorn said, if you accept random people, you run the risk of being abused.  If you decide to restrict access, you've already reduced content.  Are you going to require SSN, DLs, some other kind of identifier that someone smart can still work around?  The website or app is a fixed target.  Posters will always be harder to nail down, so the former will always bear the brunt of any legal action without 230 protections.  

Ant is dead on with the comparison to DCMA abuse.  The operator will bear the brunt of any legal actions.  Step one will be serving the site with a violation notice, then requesting the site turn over the offender's information.  Cant find johnny internets because he fed you a fake SSN, DL, whatever?  Too bad, I guess Surly gets to eat the legal problems.  

Repealing 230 will have people screaming that leopards ate their face once they realize the full impacts of that decision.  

 

This should clearly be a thread. For starters, I did in good faith as a question, and I'm thrilled there's a discussion and debate over it. I'm hardly 100% convinced. And I'm sure there are plenty of consequences I haven't foreseen. 

14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

For one, it's an overly broad measure to implement because "fuck Facebook and Twitter". As someone work makes a living thanks to the internet, I'm not real big about the rules of the road being changed for everyone to address edge cases of bad behavior. 

I'd much rather see rules/legislation around microtargetted advertising and data collection, ideally something like a US-GDPR. That measure alone would break FB and TW's business models but not flip the table over for everyone else. Not to mention ya know, us normal folks getting privacy by default back. 

Don't forget Fuck 4chan, 8chan, Parler, etc. That's an oversimplification and an understatement of (in my view) the danger this shit represents entirely. And I disagree with your point that it constitutes "edge behavior" at this point, but that is all part of the discussion. 

I'd love much more robust rules being put in place without having to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I just don't see that happening in this partisan climate. At all. Do You?

And for the records, my entire business is internet based. So yeah, I'm not exactly without skin in the game here. Its my entire livelihood. 
 

@immamac Hate to add to your work flow, but can we get an actual 230 thread?

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by SydneyCarton

[TXSG8R 3,362]

Just now, immamac said:

You would already be fucking banned if section 230 didn't exist. How's that for a dose of reality? 

 

Ill let you expand on that, because outside of a pointless threat, I don't get it.  230 makes most of what we consider the goods parts of the internet work for lack of a better term.  If content providers (IE every website and app) have to consider liability for everything that's on it, almost all real-time content goes dark.  No one wants to stick their neck out for rando's posting something.  A newspaper comment section isn't very enjoyable, and that is what the internet becomes without 230. 

Post, moderator review, published post, reply, moderator review, published reply.  

[immamac 42,864]

DONE AND DONE MOTHER FUCKER @SydneyCarton

[SydneyCarton 48,110]

3 minutes ago, immamac said:

DONE AND DONE MOTHER FUCKER @SydneyCarton

[wildcat09 29,355]

Yelp would be turbofucked.

[tantric superman 4,667]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

Surly is actually pretty alright if 230 gets repealed, more moderation would be necessary on some of the more edgy posts.

Just because you muzzle me up doesn't mean Shawshank isn't a shitty movie.

[Dahobbs 17,625]

1 hour ago, Walden Ponderer said:

No he's not wrong, or no it's not wonderful news?  As to why it's in a defense bill, because politics, duh.

Which is why it doesn't matter whether it's repealed or not, of course. It's toothless with a vile government, and unnecessary with a good one. Focusing on the policy instead of the politicians is getting lost in the weeds -- our nation is currently in the shitter because of a serious lack of character (both collective and personal), not because of whose piece of paper is currently the governing document.

I don't think you have any idea what 230 does. Government action is part of it I guess, but the broader protection is from civil liability (e.g., libel). 

1 hour ago, immamac said:

Surly is actually pretty alright if 230 gets repealed, more moderation would be necessary on some of the more edgy posts. However think of this - how much legal trouble have any of you gotten in from what you've posted here? It protects us from the suit being brought on US and YOU not just YOU. 

Twitter and FB know they are doing fucked up anti-democratic things by allowing nonsense on their platforms (I mean look at parler, straight up monetizing idiocracy). This would certainly destroy some of the virility and impact of those companies and change the way those platforms work. However, sports twitter would be the same, sharing your family photos would be the same etc etc. Section 230 has let places like the chan boards exist as platforms instead of having to worry about the people posting psychotic shit. 

Twitter and FB need to be destroyed, they aren't productive to society at all and they are not responsible as platform providers at all because they are trying to maximize revenue not social utility. 

This is a very interesting take that I have not really considered before. But, I think you probably underestimate the effect a 230 repeal would have on forums like this.

55 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

If I come in and post something illegal, you would be liable without 230 protections.  It opens the door to a new form of DDOS through simple posts.  Keep spamming illegal shit, you have to stop real time posts and moderate all content, your shit is broken.  There are certainly negative effects with 230, just like there are negative effects to freedom of speech.  The right wants to repeal 230 because they think it will help them avoid moderation and/or allow them to use their favorite tool, litigation, to strong arm content providers.  Its a nuclear option that will lead to most real-time content being deemed not worth the trouble by most operators.  

Yup. 

21 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Every one of us is judgment proof. Surly is fucked. 

And this is why @immamac's take would end up being wrong. Individuals are protected by both anonymity and being judgement proof. Surly and other websites are much more vulnerable. 

[Tuco 5,076]

32 minutes ago, Captainant said:

For one, it's an overly broad measure to implement because "fuck Facebook and Twitter". As someone who makes a living thanks to the internet, I'm not real big about the rules of the road being changed for everyone to address edge cases of bad behavior. 

I'd much rather see rules/legislation around microtargetted advertising and data collection, ideally something like a US-GDPR. That measure alone would break FB and TW's business models but not flip the table over for everyone else. Not to mention ya know, us normal folks getting privacy by default back. 

This is pretty much where I am.  I do believe there needs to be more tools to combat disinformation, but I don't this is a great one. It seems to be taking a sledge hammer where a scalpel is needed. 

For one thing, there are plenty of media outlets that are not protected, but still are able to push disinformation - think OAN, FoxBusiness, Newsmax.  All they do is work around the current slander/libel laws.  FoxNews reporting on Seth Rich is a great example.  They were caught red-handed fabricating absolute bullshit about Seth Rich to support a host of conspiracy theories, Rich's family sues, but since Seth was dead, there was no injured party in the case.  FoxNews, or anyone else, can push whatever lies they want as long as long as there is no financial impact on someone with standing.  It's not criminal, and there is no one to bring a civil case.  How do we change that?  If you don't change that, it seems fairly easy for on-line sources to work the same tricks.  Reversing 230 might address 50% of the current disinformation campaigns, but those bullshit producers will change the form of their lies, but not the function.  

[Walden Ponderer 12,639]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think you have any idea what 230 does. Government action is part of it I guess, but the broader protection is from civil liability (e.g., libel). 

And I don't think you have any idea what evolution the law will make in the absence of 230. Mostly because no one does. In the abstract, the "broader protection from civil liability" is granting freedom from consequence that allows less moderation and more exchange of ideas. But there is no guarantee that this is sustainable even with 230, nor is there reason to be certain that absent 230, suddenly every site that posts batshit crazy stuff is going to be shut down by a flurry of litigation. 

I suspect that on balance it's a good thing, but I'm not counting on lawyers not fucking it up regardless of which direction this goes.

[immamac 42,864]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think you have any idea what 230 does. Government action is part of it I guess, but the broader protection is from civil liability (e.g., libel). 

This is a very interesting take that I have not really considered before. But, I think you probably underestimate the effect a 230 repeal would have on forums like this.

Yup. 

And this is why @immamac's take would end up being wrong. Individuals are protected by both anonymity and being judgement proof. Surly and other websites are much more vulnerable. 

internet anonymity would be gone immediately. Your full name and email and location would be available in your profile and mandatory for sign up. 

230 would hold me liable for refusing to remove the content not for letting it be posted in the first place. 

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

Here's the thing.  Repeal of 230 would make social media potentially liable for defamatory posts, which, without some other "safe harbor," would potentially shut them down.

Section 230 does not address false or "bad" information.  It's continued existence or repeal does not directly affect "bad" speech.  

There is nothing in our statutory or common law arsenal that addresses bad political speech.  It would be difficult to craft something that didn't run afoul of the First Amendment.

[Tuco 5,076]

1 minute ago, Walden Ponderer said:

But there is no guarantee that this is sustainable even with 230, nor is there reason to be certain that absent 230, suddenly every site that posts batshit crazy stuff is going to be shut down by a flurry of litigation. 

My bigger concern is that every site that posts anything controversial is going to be shutdown.  I'm not normally a big fan of liability protections, but I could certainly see Devon Nunes filing lawsuits every time someone pretends to be his cow.  Maybe Twitter and Facebook are big enough to push back on that, but would Surly?  

[Dahobbs 17,625]

1 minute ago, Walden Ponderer said:

And I don't think you have any idea what evolution the law will make in the absence of 230. Mostly because no one does. In the abstract, the "broader protection from civil liability" is granting freedom from consequence that allows less moderation and more exchange of ideas. But there is no guarantee that this is sustainable even with 230, nor is there reason to be certain that absent 230, suddenly every site that posts batshit crazy stuff is going to be shut down by a flurry of litigation. 

I suspect that on balance it's a good thing, but I'm not counting on lawyers not fucking it up regardless of which direction this goes.

That is very different from what you said previously. You're still wrong, but at least this post actually addresses what 230 does in some meaningful way. And, 230's effect is a bit more complicated than you described. Zero moderation was historically a way around liability. But, the problem is that zero moderation was bad for business. 230 freed websites to provide something between zero moderation and zealous moderation.

[TXSG8R 3,362]

1 minute ago, immamac said:

internet anonymity would be gone immediately. Your full name and email and location would be available in your profile and mandatory for sign up. 

230 would hold me liable for refusing to remove the content not for letting it be posted in the first place. 

Will said registration require an in-person check in to validate documentation or will I be transmitting all of this over the internet?  You see the problem there, right?

[TwiceHorn 31,495]

We should probably have a link to 230. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

This is probably the most operative provision:

Quote

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Similarly, no ICS can be made liable for censoring material on its site.

What the quoted provision means is that, no matter how defamatory a post made on an ICS' site, the ICS would not become liable for defamation simply by posting it.  The idea is that an ICS (site, board, social media, etc.) doesn't have the same kind of control over its content as a newspaper or other conventional media, which generally picks and chooses what it publishes and therefore should be as liable for defamation as the originator or "speaker."

Section 230 does not provide a "takedown" scheme or endorse one.  It is possible that once an ICS is notified of defamatory content, and refuses to take it down, or simply takes no action, it then becomes a more active "promoter" of the defamatory content and then liable in the tradtional publisher sense of defamation actions.  I haven't followed the law on this, but I kind of recollect that most of the time there is no takedown obligation to maintain this safe harbor.  I could be wrong.

Edited December 2, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Dahobbs 17,625]

4 minutes ago, immamac said:

internet anonymity would be gone immediately. Your full name and email and location would be available in your profile and mandatory for sign up. 

230 would hold me liable for refusing to remove the content not for letting it be posted in the first place. 

Libel laws don't have the same structure as something like a DMCA takedown. There isn't, as far as I know, any requirement of a pre-suit take down notice. You would be liable not because you refused a request to take down the content, but because you negligently allowed the content to be posted (and remain posted) in the first place. Or, you could choose zero moderation, but we all know that ends up in a website of scat porn. Maybe that would be a better business than I think. 

[SydneyCarton 48,110]

12 minutes ago, Tuco said:

This is pretty much where I am.  I do believe there needs to be more tools to combat disinformation, but I don't this is a great one. It seems to be taking a sledge hammer where a scalpel is needed. 

For one thing, there are plenty of media outlets that are not protected, but still are able to push disinformation - think OAN, FoxBusiness, Newsmax.  All they do is work around the current slander/libel laws.  FoxNews reporting on Seth Rich is a great example.  They were caught red-handed fabricating absolute bullshit about Seth Rich to support a host of conspiracy theories, Rich's family sues, but since Seth was dead, there was no injured party in the case.  FoxNews, or anyone else, can push whatever lies they want as long as long as there is no financial impact on someone with standing.  It's not criminal, and there is no one to bring a civil case.  How do we change that?  If you don't change that, it seems fairly easy for on-line sources to work the same tricks.  Reversing 230 might address 50% of the current disinformation campaigns, but those bullshit producers will change the form of their lies, but not the function.  

The Fairness Doctrine would hopefully fix regular media to some degree, but you're not wrong. Which brings me to...

6 minutes ago, immamac said:

internet anonymity would be gone immediately. Your full name and email and location would be available in your profile and mandatory for sign up. 

230 would hold me liable for refusing to remove the content not for letting it be posted in the first place. 

I've actually kicked around the idea of removing anonymity from the internet for awhile now. I'm sure there's hundreds of reasons I haven't considered on why that is horrible, but I can't help come back to the idea that removing anonymity in some fashion would help prevent people from spouting hate speech and shit. Before the internet, assholes were shouted down by the masses and kept their mouths shut and did less damage. Echo chambers and no accountability remove that. I wonder if having no anonymity would fix much of this (yes, FB and Twitter aren't entirely anonymous now). Maybe I'm allowed one handle per website tied to a SSN and current address. 

I'm sure somehow the privacy folks would lose their shit. Also, for the record this is me talking out loud. Change my minds, please.

[lemonlime 5,503]

8 minutes ago, Tuco said:

My bigger concern is that every site that posts anything controversial is going to be shutdown.  I'm not normally a big fan of liability protections, but I could certainly see Devon Nunes filing lawsuits every time someone pretends to be his cow.  Maybe Twitter and Facebook are big enough to push back on that, but would Surly?  

This.  Also, even if it's unlikely that any individual website will be sued for any individual post, this would have a huge chilling effect.   It's not even necessarily controversial stuff that would be at issue.  For instance, any bad restaurant review in Food & Travel could open up Surly to liability.  So why would a website allow criticisms of any business at all if 230 is repealed, and any one review could lead to to huge legal fees?

[TXSG8R 3,362]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

The Fairness Doctrine would hopefully fix regular media to some degree, but you're not wrong. Which brings me to...

I've actually kicked around the idea of removing anonymity from the internet for awhile now. I'm sure there's hundreds of reasons I haven't considered on why that is horrible, but I can't help come back to the idea that removing anonymity in some fashion would help prevent people from spouting hate speech and shit. Before the internet, assholes were shouted down by the masses and kept their mouths shut and did less damage. Echo chambers and no accountability remove that. I wonder if having no anonymity would fix much of this (yes, FB and Twitter aren't entirely anonymous now). Maybe I'm allowed one handle per website tied to a SSN and current address. 

I'm sure somehow the privacy folks would lose their shit. Also, for the record this is me talking out loud. Change my minds, please.

Removing anonymity on the internet is all but impossible for those willing to avoid it. You may comply, but the assholes that want to cause trouble can circumvent almost everything you throw at them. 
 

I also think you are vastly underselling the amount of public assholery that goes on.  Think of the amount of Congress people that throw absolute shit bombs out on a daily basis.  We know who they are. We shout a lot about it. They keep doing it. 
 

edit:  the fairness doctrine applies to media/journalists. That’s the issue FB, Twitter, etc is trying to avoid being tied to with trying to avoid moderation in the first place. That’s why crazy has happened as much as it has on those platforms. If they get flipped to being media and not a content provider, they have to moderate everything, and those models break completely. Has anyone invoked slippery slope yet?  

Edited December 2, 2020 by TXSG8R

[SydneyCarton 48,110]

1 minute ago, TXSG8R said:

Removing anonymity on the internet is all but impossible for those willing to avoid it. You may comply, but the assholes that want to cause trouble can circumvent almost everything you throw at them. 
 

I also think you are vastly underselling the amount of public assholery that goes on.  Think of the amount of Congress people that throw absolute shit bombs out on a daily basis.  We know who they are. We shout a lot about it. They keep doing it. 

Sure. But isn't that technically ANY rule or law? Robbing banks is illegal, but folks still try it. 

Is remaining anonymous possible? Sure. Is it a roadblock that I think 80% of the people won't bother doing? I think this is more likely. So you're still cutting down on the problem, no?

Yes. Yes. they do. Because there aren't any consequences. 

[High Plains Drifter 11,050]

47 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yelp would be turbofucked.

 

mehgif.

 

[lemonlime 5,503]

24 minutes ago, Tuco said:

This is pretty much where I am.  I do believe there needs to be more tools to combat disinformation, but I don't this is a great one. It seems to be taking a sledge hammer where a scalpel is needed. 

For one thing, there are plenty of media outlets that are not protected, but still are able to push disinformation - think OAN, FoxBusiness, Newsmax.  All they do is work around the current slander/libel laws.  FoxNews reporting on Seth Rich is a great example.  They were caught red-handed fabricating absolute bullshit about Seth Rich to support a host of conspiracy theories, Rich's family sues, but since Seth was dead, there was no injured party in the case.  FoxNews, or anyone else, can push whatever lies they want as long as long as there is no financial impact on someone with standing.  It's not criminal, and there is no one to bring a civil case.  How do we change that?  If you don't change that, it seems fairly easy for on-line sources to work the same tricks.  Reversing 230 might address 50% of the current disinformation campaigns, but those bullshit producers will change the form of their lies, but not the function.  

FWIW, Seth Rich's parents did sue Fox, and the case just settled--not sure of the amount Fox paid out.

[Tuco 5,076]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's the thing.  Repeal of 230 would make social media potentially liable for defamatory posts, which, without some other "safe harbor," would potentially shut them down.

Section 230 does not address false or "bad" information.  It's continued existence or repeal does not directly affect "bad" speech.  

And correct me if I am wrong, but it is pretty damn difficult for a public figure to win one of these cases.  Not to say they wouldn't bring a case as a nuisance.  So, whether the attack on a politician was factual, the impact on the social media platform would most likely be the same - defending against a nuisance lawsuit they would likely win.  The truth would have little financial impact on the provider.