Hacker News Reader

Comment by root_axis | Hacker News Reader

> Be a bit more tolerant of other people's point of view.

Why would I tolerate a blatant falsehood?

> that does not exempt them from being the actual publisher, and all the rights/obligations that go with it.

With respect, you're totally misinformed. Social media websites do not fall under any kind of "publisher" obligation, this is a totally made up meme that people spread online.

Now, if you want to argue that we should change the laws so that these websites would fall under some kind of publisher obligations, I would disagree, but that would at least allow room for "tolerance of other people's point of view". However, in terms of the actual law you and the parent are unequivocally incorrect.

View on HN

I really don't know the answer to this so I'm not trying to trick you, really just trying to see how far Section 230 goes.

If a Twitter user posts child porn (which is an example of an illegal act in the US), and Twitter knows that it is on the platform and does not remove the content, do you know if Twitter would therefore become liable for the content?

(Again, this is more exploring Section 230, not about the specific controversy du jour.)

They would very likely be liable under SESTA/FOSTA, although I don't know how much precedent exists around that specific law right now. This is part of the reason why many adult sections on sites like Reddit/Craigslist were shut down after SESTA/FOSTA passed. The companies didn't want to risk extra liability in that area.

Section 230 also wouldn't have necessarily protected them before SESTA/FOSTA either, federal criminal liability was always exempted. It's just that SESTA/FOSTA made that a lot more explicit and generally widened that liability.

Section 230 isn't a blanket protection against literally anything (it also has a number of holes surrounding copyright). It's just a much broader protection than many people online think, and the areas where it doesn't protect platforms typically don't line up well with where Internet commenters think it shouldn't protect companies.

IANAL, don't go out and do something stupid and then claim that I said it was legally OK. But in general a good heuristic for talking about Section 230 online is that it's, "not unlimited, but probably broader than you're thinking." But if you're trying to launch your own service or something and you want legal advice about where exactly the line is drawn, you should talk to an actual lawyer.

I love HN. Thank you so much for the thoughtful response.

> If a Twitter user posts child porn (which is an example of an illegal act in the US), and Twitter knows that it is on the platform and does not remove the content, do you know if Twitter would therefore become liable for the content?

Section 230 isn't absolute, there are several specific exceptions. One example is the FOSTA law from 2017 which explicitly overrides Section 230.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865

> The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to declare that section 230 does not limit: (1) a federal civil claim for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, (2) a federal criminal charge for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, or (3) a state criminal charge for conduct that promotes or facilitates prostitution in violation of this bill.

There are some other examples I'm not thinking of off the top of my head, but on a note directed more towards the general discussion, I'd point out that creating laws to limit the scope of Section 230 is illustrative of the kind of freedoms it affords site operators in the general case.

thank you!

>Social media websites do not fall under any kind of "publisher" obligation

No one said they did. But also Section 230 does not imply that they're exempt of that, in the case they become such a thing. And remember that those rights/obligations are acquired the moment they are exercised.

Consider the following:

Twitter (the platform), on its official twitter account (on their own platform) decides to publish something which has legal repercussions. Are they exempt of them because of that statement on Section 230? No, not at all.

To use a different example, somebody today used the New York Times web site: Section 230 gives them immunity for anything posted by randos in the comments to their articles, where they operate as a platform.

Section 230 does NOT give the NYT immunity for anything in the articles themselves, where they operate as a publisher. However, absent S. 230 protection, those articles and their publisher still enjoy regular First Amendment protection, which is quite strong. In particular, there are nearly insurmountable obstacles for a public figure to win a defamation lawsuit in the US.

> Section 230 gives them immunity for anything posted by randos in the comments to their articles

You're aware that comments on NYT articles are also human-moderated, yes?

Yes, and section 230 explicitly states that moderation does not waive that immunity:

(2) Civil liability

No 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 [...]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

> Twitter (the platform), on its official twitter account (on their own platform) decides to publish something which has legal repercussions. Are they exempt of them because of that statement on Section 230? No, not at all.

No, not at all, because Section 230 has nothing to say about the scenario you are describing.

> 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_

In your scenario Twitter is the provider of the information, so naturally they are liable for the legal repercussions of posting that information. Everyone already understands how this works intuitively, obviously when something illegal or otherwise legally significant is posted to the internet there isn't even a question of whether or not the posting platform is legally responsible for it as long as they are perceived to be taking reasonable steps to remove the offending content. If the site operators are posting the questionable content directly then obviously they are liable.

That's not what we're talking about though, we're discussing twitter having labled Trump's tweet as misinformation. I guess you're suggesting that twitter is the "publisher" of that warning and thus they are legally responsible for it, which is true, but there is nothing illegal about what they published so the hypothetical is moot.

You got the point!

Meaning that the statement by eanzenberg:

>"As they move into a “publisher” role, they will be liable in count (sic)."

Is not wrong. At least not over what concerns Section 230.

To paraphrase and summarize the whole discussion:

"As they move into a “publisher” role, Section 230 will not exempt them from what they do."

> Section 230 will not exempt them from what they do.

I'm glad we came to an understanding but this is a strawman. You might as well be saying "Section 230 does not exempt twitter from the law". This is very obviously not something anyone is arguing.

Social media platforms should be considered publications. A company cannot say they have an open platform and call Themselves immune if they’re going to editorialize and punish views you disagree with. Section 230 needs to destroyed.

Destroyed is too strong; it would basically terminate all social media sites, news aggregators, comment sections, forums.. everything since precisely nobody is going to sign up for the legal liability. (Except, maybe, for megacorps like Facebook, with a net gain of nothing)

I would like to see it greatly narrowed.

Even if we ignore this particular instance as a special case where the act was justified, large companies having unfettered control over most political discourse in the country, and wielding that power in an arbitrary, unaccountable way is still a problem.

People should be allowed to control their own websites.

The leap you're making here is that by moderating things on their platform, they suddenly become the publisher of said information. This is neither in the text of the law, nor in how the courts have interpreted it.

Yes, if Twitter publishes something defamatory in their own name, they're liable. No, they are not the publisher of any content they choose to moderate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com