The goal would be to put significant, very large restictions on their ability to moderate.
> There are already forums with “zero” moderation
How about we look at other examples of communication platforms, that are working perfectly fine.
Just take a look at the phone network, or ISPs.
ISPs and phone networks, have very little "moderation" from the parent company, and yet seem to work pretty well, IMO.
Why can't we treat other communication platforms, the same way that we are treating the large and successful communication platform, which is the phone network?
It’s weird to be having this argument on one of the very forums that benefits from 230. Do you think HN would be a better place if it were forbidden from moderating content? Were you here before dang came along? Can you imagine how much spam gets deleted before we see it and how unusable it would be if it didn’t?
And not for nothing but I wish my phone company would do an better job of moderating the junk calls and spam texts I get.
But set the phone company metaphor aside: I still don’t understand what outcome you want for social media. How do you imagine it will look? Or is this actually intended to put them all out of business? If so, taking down every comment section and discussion board seems like a lot of collateral damage.
Because it is a platform? I don't see a problem with enforcing neutrality on platforms, in the same way that I don't see a problem with enforcing it on my phone company, or my ISP.
> Do you think HN would be a better place
I think the old school reddit model is a reasonable goal to aim for for these types of platforms.
(yes reddit has taken down some communities as of late, but lets assume that this didn't happen, to clarify the example)
IE, delegating moderation to users, but allowing communities in general to be created, with their own sets of rules, feels pretty fair and neutral.
> I still don’t understand what outcome you want for social media. How do you imagine it will look?
The model would be that any form of "moderation" on non-illegal content would be driven entirely by users, or communities of users.
IE, we can still allow people to do things like have shared block lists, or even curated communities within that platform, as long as other users are also able to create their own communities on that platform, that ignore those sets of rules.
Users could still make the choice to have certain rules, or moderation, if that is what they want.
Or, in other words, the reddit model, but without reddit removing non-illegal communities (which, to be fair, doesn't happen that often on reddit anyway. Reddit still mostly tries to be neutral, and they do an ok job with it)
EX: if a user doesn't want to see NSFW stuff, or trolling, or "misinformation", or any other offensive content, then there could be general categories, that describe those things, and the user can have that as a setting to not see that stuff.
Let me go out on a limb here and say that no-one is going onto Facebook looking to find misinformation. They may be looking for stories that appeal to their prejudices and be willing to suspend disbelief for those stories.
But no-one is going to tick the box saying "please show me stuff that is actually definitively false, and potentially dangerous to my person".
So the problem will simply move along to how the "misinformation" tag is being applied and the biases at play there.
Completely disagree. I would absolutely tick that box, as would many other people, specifically because we don't necessarily automatically trust whatever authority is "deciding" what is misinformation or not.
Instead, I would prefer to research an issue, by looking at multiple sides, and make a judgement, as opposed to having some minister of truth controlling what I am or am not allowed to read.
> is being applied and the biases at play there.
But the point is, that if you don't trust a certain group or source's opinion on what "misinformation" is, then you could choose a different authority on that.
IE, the tags for what is or is not "misinformation", would be community controlled, and you could pick which community or group to use as the "source" for this tag.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” - Sam Adams
You want to propose a law that regulates Facebook let’s talk about that directly.
Another analogy: if you are a for-profit business, do not claim Charity status. It is criminal if you do.
Just the opposite. Companies unwillingness to intervene did so. Your opinion may be different, but it's nothing more, and suggesting we deny people their civil liberties based on your hunch is a dangerous line of thinking.
Are you saying that a special immunity from prosecution, granted to particular businesses, is a civil liberty?
Or is this some kind of “freedom from being offended/misinformed” newspeak?
I can’t think of another interpretation where what I am proposing does anything but preserve civil liberties.
I think that moderation is a consequence of the rights to speech and association. The ability to choose what content you host, and whose content you host, is a consequence of those rights.
Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, whomever, cannot violate your civil liberties. Only the government can do that. And when they pass laws that, de facto, restrict the ability of companies to associate and speak freely, they restrict those essential liberties.
Section 230 ensured civil liberties, both Facebook's, and yours, and mine. It means that anyone who wants to can create a website for broadcasting and discussion q-anon conspiracies theories, and they can ban anyone who chooses to disagree. But just the same, I can prevent those people from posting things on my website.
The right to speech does not mean that you are also immune from libel laws. That’s the controversial part, Facebook enjoys both the rights (plus consequences), and a special immunity under Section 230 that does not apply to any other kind of speech.
> And when they pass laws that, de facto, restrict the ability of companies to associate and speak freely, they restrict those essential liberties.
Do you think that being banned from Facebook does not also restrict an individual’s ability to associate and speak freely, in 2020?
> Section 230 ensured civil liberties, both Facebook's, and yours, and mine.
I’m sure lawmakers are hearing this exact line from lobbyists, but it rings hollow. One of those is clearly not like the others, and perhaps the law should favor “yours and mine”.
It does not affect their civil liberties, no.
> One of those is clearly not like the others, and perhaps the law should favor “yours and mine”.
Section 230 does. And repealing it would harm them.
> The right to speech does not mean that you are also immune from libel laws.
Correct. And if we were discussing writing section 230, that would be valid. But we aren't. We're discussing changing established law. And if the reason to change the law is to restrict civil liberties that at protected by the first amendment, you encounter a constitutional problem.
Much as some laws are unconstitutional to enforce, I simply argue that some are unconstitutional to ignore.
If you want to imagine the negative impacts of such a change, a forum on baking could no longer remove content that was not related to baking without being liable for content posted by users.
As far as I know, the owner of a physical bulletin board isn't responsible if I post a libelous poster on it. Why should a virtual bulletin board be any different?
If they are not a neutral platform, they cannot claim shields of section 230.
It is like for a business that hides money in a Organization with a Charity status. We would have that business facing criminal charges in no time.
Why the execs of these platforms demand something different ?
So is a 'for-profit business' is a perfectly fine thing. But having a for-profit business using tax code for a non-profit charity -- would be criminal.
So why does 230 or other shields apply to Twitter or HN or FB?
My point I think more that a social networking company can apply crowdsourced or individual editorialization to political speech. And that application can also be biased, selective and therefore unfair.
It is ok that these companies might do that, but not OK to hide under shields meant for the companies that do not do that (like ISPs)
What shields? What kind of consequences do you imagine these sites should face for biased content moderation?
I get multiple, unsolicited phone calls a day from spoofed phone numbers. I consider the phone network mostly useless.
Why is your content okay, but mine isn't?
(I kid, but I think it gets at the biggest flaw in reasoning of people who think there is an objective distinction between political speech and spam.)
Color me unsurprised that the end game of the nominally pro–free speech crowd is letting the government determine what legal speech should be censored.
1. Even if the courts always get it right, small sites are not going to want to want to hire a lawyer and go to court to defend someone else's speech. They will instead err on the side of caution (as many do now for DMCA violations), causing a chilling effect on speech.
2. In a system where whether a platform is liable for its content is ultimately decided by courts we cede a lot of power over speech to the government.
I really don't think the courts are the path we want to take.
As courts set precedents, the process will become more streamlined. Ultimately becoming codified into law by congress.
Seems like a lot of the people decrying the behavior of the social media sites here are just asking for a censorship regime controlled by them instead of the site itself. Which we already have a mechanism for: go found your own.
So let’s not mess with a law bedrock to the participatory part of the internet. Gutting 230 to get Facebook misunderstands the problem and will have horrible unintended consequences.
It is not designed to do so.
Some politicians have become fixated on Section 230 as a remedy to what they feel is an injustice centered around these massive platforms, when what 230 mostly does is allow hundreds of thousands of small websites to operate without fear of legal liability for every single user comment, whether or not they do basic spam-filtering.
A solution exactly designed to make Facebook and Twitter less profitable would not touch the hundreds of thousands of other websites that gutting 230 would suddenly expose to liability. It would be much more tailored and specific to its purpose.
The solution is very simple. Remove section 230 specifically for recommendations. Which IMO makes sense, people perceive "More like X" or more explicitly "You might also like X" as tacit endorsement.
The algorithms ARE moderation, of sorts.
Better yet, something like Aether, where everybody can moderate for their own feed, and any user can designate any other user or group of users as their moderators to get a curated feed with no effort of their own.
With the phone company it’s impractical to listen to every conversation and “eliminate the threats”, it is practical with the internet.
EU wants upload filters(stop singing “happy birthday” to your friend, that needs lives), UK want porn and crypto control(no dirty talk on the phone, no secretive talks, must speak load and clear). Turkey wants to control the narrative(An operator jumps in your phone conversation to correct you or stop you talking).
I am sure That US, Canada, Norway , Iran, India etc all have their own agenda too and would loved to control your phone conversations.
As for the liability, it’s already here. A lot of people are serving time or paying damages for the things they did on the internet. The new stuff is to make it controllable at scale.
This is not true. In fact, the document you are thinking of explicitly states that its application shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation.
Okay, I'll bite. Should newspapers be liable (that is, able to be sued) for a letter to the editor they publish? How about a comment someone leaves on their website?
Why shouldn't they? If the letter is libelous, then they're responsible for distributing it to a larger audience.
Printing a letter to the editor isn't authoring it, after all. The newspaper is exercising some editorial control in that letters to the editor are not all printed, but it isn't endorsement per-se, just a judgement that there is some public interest in making it available. Any liability for libel should surely lie with the letter's author rather than the newspaper.
I also note that you ignored the latter half of my question.
In case you weren't aware, the answer, currently, to the second half of your question, is that they aren't liable for a website comment, due to section 230.
As for the first half of your question, the newspaper affirmatively chooses to publish the letter. That's where they get the liability. The website does not, it simply fails to censor it.
IIUC they actually aren't responsible for that since they didn't write or publish it.
It is like having a for-profit business hiding under a non-profit tax umbrella.
If HN cannot figure out now to avoid editoralization of polical opinions (either by crowdsource or moderators), then do not allow political content. If HN wants to allow political content, and wants to allow the edtorialization function -- then do not hide behind 'neutral platform'.