Section 230 discussion

[elfenix 34172]

 

[bernorange 8348]

SCOTUS hearing oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google today in roughly half an hour.  Live stream available on SCOTUS website:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/

This case has implications for Section 230.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/02/section-230-trial-heres-what-you-need-know

[safe sex 11684]

How hard will SCOTUS fuck us this time?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

Explain it to me like I'm 5.

From my understanding 230 protects internet companies from not being held responsible for content added to their site by their customers/users. While I think Facebook should do a better job moderating their content, how would removal of this protection harm smaller content companies like Surly who cannot afford that level of moderation?

[The Royal We 3066]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Explain it to me like I'm 5.

From my understanding 230 protects internet companies from not being held responsible for content added to their site by their customers/users. While I think Facebook should do a better job moderating their content, how would removal of this protection harm smaller content companies like Surly who cannot afford that level of moderation?

I just re-read the first page of this thread and it does a pretty good job of covering both sides of the argument.  I tend to fall on the side of the argument that repealing 230 would make it very difficult to keep a site like Surly up.  It would also make Tigerdroppings go away, so it might be worth it...

[DigglerontheHoof 21065]

4 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

I just re-read the first page of this thread and it does a pretty good job of covering both sides of the argument.  I tend to fall on the side of the argument that repealing 230 would make it very difficult to keep a site like Surly up.  It would also make Tigerdroppings go away, so it might be worth it...

[bernorange 8348]

Lawyers live blogging the oral arguments (read from bottom up):

https://rebootingsocialmedia.org/events/gonzalez-v-google-live-analysis/

[HamsterHookah 112]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Explain it to me like I'm 5.

From my understanding 230 protects internet companies from not being held responsible for content added to their site by their customers/users. While I think Facebook should do a better job moderating their content, how would removal of this protection harm smaller content companies like Surly who cannot afford that level of moderation?

The case, Gonzalez v. Google, was brought by the family of an American college student, Nohemi Gonzalez, who was among more than 100 people killed during the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. The plaintiffs allege that YouTube failed to take down some ISIS terrorist videos and even recommended them to users. They say that makes Google liable for damages under the Anti-Terrorism Act, although they haven’t presented evidence that the terrorists involved saw those videos.

[Captainant 27467]

22 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

They say that makes Google liable for damages under the Anti-Terrorism Act, although they haven’t presented evidence that the terrorists involved saw those videos.

They gutted the civil rights act on the basis of there apparently being no more racism, the shitty prayer in school sports decision was based on non-existent fact patterns, I'm sure Roberts won't let a pesky thing like factual accuracy get in his way.

[HamsterHookah 112]

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

They gutted the civil rights act on the basis of there apparently being no more racism, the shitty prayer in school sports decision was based on non-existent fact patterns, I'm sure Roberts won't let a pesky thing like factual accuracy get in his way.

As a technologist, are you for or against 230?

[Captainant 27467]

1 hour ago, HamsterHookah said:

As a technologist, are you for or against 230?

I don't think it's a flawless or perfect piece of legislation, and there's much room for improvement upon it. It was written in a different era of technology in which the concept of "big data" meant maybe a terabyte, if you were the government or something, and when broadband was >5mbps connectivity. 

To wit, I think it's more interesting to view S230 through the lens of technical debt: it's imperfect, visibly limited, and absolutely critical to ongoing normal operations. It's a 25 year old framework thats been extended well past it's lifetime, and many of it's conventions have sublimated into protocol that's baked into how the internet and copyright work (DMCA, for example). 

And just like tech debt challenges, it's tempting to declare tech debt bankruptcy and tear it all down to start from scratch - but you still MUST meet that critical functionality. In the case of S230, that functionality is providing rules of the road and a broad framework for who is responsible for what is on the internet. Good or bad, it's what we have now. It's going to be worse no matter what to just remove that piece without addressing the function it served in creating a desired outcome.

I haven't had a chance to follow arguments much because I've been on site with a customer all day, but it seems like the justices are thankfully aware of the gravity of what they're discussing. Or at least they're asking salient questions that don't indicate a preconceived ruling, as was in the Dobbs case

[HamsterHookah 112]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I don't think it's a flawless or perfect piece of legislation, and there's much room for improvement upon it. It was written in a different era of technology in which the concept of "big data" meant maybe a terabyte, if you were the government or something, and when broadband was >5mbps connectivity. 

To wit, I think it's more interesting to view S230 through the lens of technical debt: it's imperfect, visibly limited, and absolutely critical to ongoing normal operations. It's a 25 year old framework thats been extended well past it's lifetime, and many of it's conventions have sublimated into protocol that's baked into how the internet and copyright work (DMCA, for example). 

And just like tech debt challenges, it's tempting to declare tech debt bankruptcy and tear it all down to start from scratch - but you still MUST meet that critical functionality. In the case of S230, that functionality is providing rules of the road and a broad framework for who is responsible for what is on the internet. Good or bad, it's what we have now. It's going to be worse no matter what to just remove that piece without addressing the function it served in creating a desired outcome.

I haven't had a chance to follow arguments much because I've been on site with a customer all day, but it seems like the justices are thankfully aware of the gravity of what they're discussing. Or at least they're asking salient questions that don't indicate a preconceived ruling, as was in the Dobbs case

Well put, I think it's a very difficult problem for all the reasons you suggest and am following to see what sort of consequences any ruling has.

[bernorange 8348]

 

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

... a broad framework for who is responsible for what is on the internet. ...

Al Gore is fucked.

 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

I don't think it's a flawless or perfect piece of legislation, and there's much room for improvement upon it. It was written in a different era of technology in which the concept of "big data" meant maybe a terabyte, if you were the government or something, and when broadband was >5mbps connectivity. 

To wit, I think it's more interesting to view S230 through the lens of technical debt: it's imperfect, visibly limited, and absolutely critical to ongoing normal operations. It's a 25 year old framework thats been extended well past it's lifetime, and many of it's conventions have sublimated into protocol that's baked into how the internet and copyright work (DMCA, for example). 

And just like tech debt challenges, it's tempting to declare tech debt bankruptcy and tear it all down to start from scratch - but you still MUST meet that critical functionality. In the case of S230, that functionality is providing rules of the road and a broad framework for who is responsible for what is on the internet. Good or bad, it's what we have now. It's going to be worse no matter what to just remove that piece without addressing the function it served in creating a desired outcome.

I haven't had a chance to follow arguments much because I've been on site with a customer all day, but it seems like the justices are thankfully aware of the gravity of what they're discussing. Or at least they're asking salient questions that don't indicate a preconceived ruling, as was in the Dobbs case

Just a point of order.  You are referring more broadly to the Telcom Act of 1996, of which 230 is a quite small part.

And DMCA wasnt even part of that legislation, but an amendment to the Copyright Act that occurred two years later.

Section 230 is a relatively discrete statute, to wit:

(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:

(1)

The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.

(2)

These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.

(3)

The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

(4)

The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.

(5)

Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

(b)PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—

(1)

to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;

(2)

to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;

(3)

to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;

(4)

to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and

(5)

to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker

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.

(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)

any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)

any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

(d)Obligations of interactive computer service

A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

(e)Effect on other laws

(1)No effect on criminal law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.

(2)No effect on intellectual property law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.

(3)State law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

(4)No effect on communications privacy law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.

(5)No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—

(A)

any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;

(B)

any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or

(C)

any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.

(f)DefinitionsAs used in this section:

(1)Internet

The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.

(2)Interactive computer service

The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

(3)Information content provider

The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

(4)Access software providerThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:

(A)

filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;

(B)

pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or

(C)

transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

 

And it is really subsection (c) that is all we are talking about here.  The Gonzalez case questions the application of (c) (1) in light of YouTube's "recommendation" algorithm, which does fall somewhat outside the usual situation of permitting people to post whatever they want without civil liability for publishing, i.e. repeating defamatory matter.  I don't think that case is particularly poised to undo Section 230, but it might pose some problems for YouTube's algorithm and similar "you might like" things, which actually is probably a-ok with me.

[atomheartbevo 89449]

If I have to go back to usenet and UUencoding, I'm going to be pissed.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

6 hours ago, HamsterHookah said:

although they haven’t presented evidence that the terrorists involved saw those videos.

This is not relevant to the particulars of that case.  It was dismissed at the pleading stage because the court held that the plaintiff entirely failed to state a claim, given the broad language of 230(c)(1), under which Google/YouTube is undoubtedly an "interactive computer service" and the content posted was by an "internet content provider" and 

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.

So, whether the claim was supported by any kind of evidence of causation was completely irrelevant.  It's a matter of statutory interpretation.

This is more along the lines of the workaday decisions that the Supreme Court makes as 90% of its work.

[Captainant 27467]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Just a point of order.  You are referring more broadly to the Telcom Act of 1996, of which 230 is a quite small part.

And DMCA wasnt even part of that legislation, but an amendment to the Copyright Act that occurred two years later.

Section 230 is a relatively discrete statute, to wit:

(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:

(1)

The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.

(2)

These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.

(3)

The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

(4)

The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.

(5)

Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

(b)PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—

(1)

to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;

(2)

to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;

(3)

to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;

(4)

to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and

(5)

to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker

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.

(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)

any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)

any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

(d)Obligations of interactive computer service

A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

(e)Effect on other laws

(1)No effect on criminal law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.

(2)No effect on intellectual property law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.

(3)State law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

(4)No effect on communications privacy law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.

(5)No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—

(A)

any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;

(B)

any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or

(C)

any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.

(f)DefinitionsAs used in this section:

(1)Internet

The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.

(2)Interactive computer service

The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

(3)Information content provider

The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

(4)Access software providerThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:

(A)

filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;

(B)

pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or

(C)

transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

 

And it is really subsection (c) that is all we are talking about here.  The Gonzalez case questions the application of (c) (1) in light of YouTube's "recommendation" algorithm, which does fall somewhat outside the usual situation of permitting people to post whatever they want without civil liability for publishing, i.e. repeating defamatory matter.  I don't think that case is particularly poised to undo Section 230, but it might pose some problems for YouTube's algorithm and similar "you might like" things, which actually is probably a-ok with me.

You misunderstood me - I'm saying that S230 has been foundational for so much of the internet's life that parts of it's structure have now been further encoded into mechanisms SUCH AS the DMCA and many of the surrounding algorithmic detection of copyrighted materials and how to take them down automagically. 

I do tend to agree that the YT recommendation algo is fucked with its "you might like" options though. They have absolutely played a role in the spread of qanon and general conspiratorial bullshit, including some of the worst Alex Jones truther horseshit. For the longest time, they were a radicalization pipeline. 

That said, YouTube definitely a technology that could not have been foreseen in 1996, much less a microtargetted recommendation algo. It's a very plainly clear limitation of S230 and yet it's going to be an impossibly high opportunity cost to actually fix and improve it. It's tech debt. 

And much like the US debt ceiling, the republicans are more than happy to declare bankruptcy on this tech debt for the chance to rewrite from the ground up the way THEY want it, consequences be damned. 

[HamsterHookah 112]

@Captainant Justice Clarence Thomas defended recommendations as a vital part of the internet. “If you’re interested in cooking, you don’t want thumbnails on light jazz,” he said.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

On 2/21/2023 at 7:49 PM, Captainant said:

You misunderstood me - I'm saying that S230 has been foundational for so much of the internet's life that parts of it's structure have now been further encoded into mechanisms SUCH AS the DMCA and many of the surrounding algorithmic detection of copyrighted materials and how to take them down automagically. 

I do tend to agree that the YT recommendation algo is fucked with its "you might like" options though. They have absolutely played a role in the spread of qanon and general conspiratorial bullshit, including some of the worst Alex Jones truther horseshit. For the longest time, they were a radicalization pipeline. 

That said, YouTube definitely a technology that could not have been foreseen in 1996, much less a microtargetted recommendation algo. It's a very plainly clear limitation of S230 and yet it's going to be an impossibly high opportunity cost to actually fix and improve it. It's tech debt. 

And much like the US debt ceiling, the republicans are more than happy to declare bankruptcy on this tech debt for the chance to rewrite from the ground up the way THEY want it, consequences be damned. 

I agree that 230 has shaped "the internet," and, more accurately, media delivered through the internet that relies on user-generated content.  But, I don't really see another solution that's really viable.  Everything else collapses into a pile of hypertechnicality and litigation.

And, I don't really see a meaningful difference between YT and plain old text posts in a CS or AOL or Prodigy message board, Usenet,  or a dial-up bbs, or whatever.

It's either generated by a third-party information content provider (the uploader or poster) or it's generated by the interactive computer service (the recommendation algorithm).  If the former, the ICS has no liability, period, if the latter, liability could attach, not does, but could.  The simplicity of it has a lot of merit all unto itself.

Edited February 25, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[bernorange 8348]

I listened a little bit to the oral arguments the other day and really didn't grok the point of the thumbnail argument.  YT thumbnails are just a still frame taken from the video.  That's supposed to mean YT is publishing their own content?

[Captainant 27467]

52 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, I don't really see a meaningful difference between YT and plain old text posts in a CS or AOL or Prodigy message board, Usenet,  or a dial-up bbs, or whatever.

It's either generated by a third-party information content provider (the uploader or poster) or it's generated by the interactive computer service (the recommendation algorithm).  If the former, the ICS has no liability, period, if the latter, liability could attach, not does, but could.  The simplicity of it has a lot of merit all unto itself.

I can't tell if you're being hyperbolic or not to say there's no difference between a YouTube video and a message board post lol. In terms of copyright holder interest, cost of hosting for the user generated content, and basic engagement model with the user generated content they are apples and oranges. 

[TwiceHorn 31283]

2 hours ago, bernorange said:

I listened a little bit to the oral arguments the other day and really didn't grok the point of the thumbnail argument.  YT thumbnails are just a still frame taken from the video.  That's supposed to mean YT is publishing their own content?

I think the gist of that line of argument is that what appears to the user on a YouTube page is a thumbnail of the video and then content (title, etc.) prepared by the uploader.  So, literally speaking, YT presents to the user nothing more than uploader-generated content.  The content itself is not generated by YouTube.

However, the argument centers around the algorithm that chooses which of that uploader-generated content is displayed.  So, while the content is not generated by YT, its presentation to the user is generated by YT.  And, I suppose, to some extent YTs algorithm chooses the thumbnail, which might be the only element of YT generated content that is actually presented to the user.  It's kind of lame, but there it is.

Edited February 26, 2023 by TwiceHorn
Christ, I its and it's on this website like crazy.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

I can't tell if you're being hyperbolic or not to say there's no difference between a YouTube video and a message board post lol. In terms of copyright holder interest, cost of hosting for the user generated content, and basic engagement model with the user generated content they are apples and oranges. 

I'm talking about insofar as 230 applies to them.  Not anything you mentioned changes or should change the simple rule that if an interactive computer service merely hosts or provides a platform for user-generated content, whether text, still image, video, etc. then it shouldn't be liable for its content, but as soon as it starts adding to the content, or generating its own, it loses that immunity.

Sometimes, we just need a rule.  Doesn't have to be the perfect rule, just a rule.  And the simpler the better.

[bernorange 8348]

On 2/25/2023 at 6:49 PM, TwiceHorn said:

...

However, the argument centers around the algorithm that chooses which of that uploader-generated content is displayed.  So, while the content is not generated by YT, its presentation to the user is generated by YT.  And, I suppose, to some extent YTs algorithm chooses the thumbnail, which might be the only element of YT generated content that is actually presented to the user.  It's kind of lame, but there it is.

It's very lame.  It's akin to claiming that the use of a hyperlink using anchor text like a heading or title instead of the URL is publisher generated content.