Hacker News Reader

Comment by 3jckd | Hacker News Reader

On one hand side, provided rationale is right and I agree. If Twitter wants to play the policing game, they'd better bring out big guns and introduce a mechanism to police and fact-check entire platform.

On the other hand, and maybe its due to my lack of knowledge on the 230, how's report-and-remove of posts different? Twitter already has mechanisms to remove flagged content so how's this incident different (apart from being blatantly political).

Lastly, does anyone know if Facebook and YouTube are also protected under 230? I imagine that GOP wants to make an example of Twitter but for the sake of consistency Facebook and Youtube should get the same treatment.

View on HN

My understanding that any website on the internet that allows users to post content is protected under 230. Including Hacker News, which then becomes potentially liable for any content posted if its removed.

Facebook and Twitter should face the same liability as the New York Times. How many companies do you know that have absolute immunity? That's how Facebook, Google, and others have grown so large. They don't have to worry about what goes out on their platforms.

Facebook and Twitter should face the same liability as the New York Times.

...and every other site on the internet, including this one. Or IRC channels, or Discord, or search engines...

> Facebook and Twitter should face the same liability as the New York Times.

They already do? Comments on NYTimes articles are covered under Section 230 just as comments made on Facebook or Twitter.

They do worry, and actively moderate, which is covered under 230 and has been proven repeatedly in court, including the 9th circuit decision.

Section 230 is not absolute immunity. It's immunity from what _users of your platform_ post.

The NY Times also enjoys 230 immunity if they host comments on their site. Literally every site on the internet that has comments (including HN) have this protection.

Can you post a link to the bit of the CDA, esp section 230, that you think makes HN responsible for content if they moderate it?

> On one hand side, provided rationale is right and I agree. If Twitter wants to play the policing game, they'd better bring out big guns and introduce a mechanism to police and fact-check entire platform.

They're not required to, of course. They are exercising their right to free speech. They are also not required to publish, amplify or otherwise create a platform for any speech they don't want to.

Any site that accepts and displays user-generated content (including HN) is covered by 230.

Let's call it for what it is: absolutely immunity from libel. Something the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. DO NOT have. Once Twitter stepped across the line and started policing speech is the time for them to lose their 230 immunity.

> Once Twitter stepped across the line and started policing speech

Can you post a link to the bit of CDA 230 that you think prohibits moderation? What court case makes you think that a site can't have CDA230 protection if it starts removing content?

AH! Thank you for pointing out that Sec. 230 DOES NOT contain anything about prohibiting moderation. It's simply IMMUNITY. Blanket immunity. Thank you for pointing that out. Another great reason why Section 230 needs to be changed.

> Let's call it for what it is: absolutely immunity from libel.

This is flat out wrong. If Twitter posted something that was libelous, or a Twitter employee wrote something libelous they would be subject to libel.

This is so wrong, it verges on being misinformation.

Twitter does not have absolute immunity from liability.

That is not true. The same rules apply to everyone.

Here is a breakdown: https://imgur.com/gallery/wPsPtd7

Reply on news.ycombinator.com