Hacker News Reader

Comment by nradov | Hacker News Reader

You misunderstand. As a strong supporter of private property rights I have no objection to Y Combinator or Twitter banning users or removing content from their services. But if they're going to exercise that degree of control then for regulation and legal liability purposes they should expect to be treated more like publishers than like common carriers.

View on HN

No parcel carrier will allow me to mail my cardboard box full of loose fish guts. They turn me away because the box is wet and falling apart and smells terrible. They find the content I want them to ship to be objectionable, and it would negatively affect their ability to provide service to their other customers.

I'm not sure if that is a great analogy for what Twitter et al. are doing in regards to content policing, but there is some kind of argument there.

Should we be able to sue HN over any comment or post that gets made in this website? Do you not realize that HN would be forced to shut down overnight since the legal liability would be completely untenable? Your legal regime would effectively make internet moderation impossible. It would, without a single trace of exaggeration, instantly kill almost every single internet community in existence.

> It would, without a single trace of exaggeration, instantly kill almost every single internet community in existence.

Only the ones that act like publishers, curating the content they allow and disallow. The ones that behave more like the telephone or postal system would not have the liability, right?

You're exaggerating. I don't know why you immediately jump to the assumption that any regulatory change would be all or nothing. A more likely political outcome will be some sort of compromise.

For example, Internet services which host user-generated content might be able to retain liability protection only if they also provide some reasonable degree of transparency and accountability. Clearly document their editorial policies and algorithms, and provide a formal appeals process for users who were censored.

Should the person whose content is blocked be able to face their accuser, know precisely what line they crossed over, and have recourse against arbitrary, malicious, incompetent ... moderation? As it now stands, one entity is judge, jury, and executioner, which is a recipe for abuse of power.

Which is fine. It's the same "abuse of power" I get to enjoy when I decide whom I allow in my house and who I don't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com