Hacker News Reader

Comment by spiffytech | Hacker News Reader

Remember that Section 230 isn't just about the big, centralized services. It protects everybody who's ever run a phpBB forum for their little community, or allowed comments on their blog, or set up a Mastodon instance they share with others. If you host content written by someone else, Section 230 is what allows you to moderate it, and what prevents you from being legally liable for it. Proposals requiring "political neutrality" even add new burdens to be compliant with; your friend on your Mastodon ranting about "that politician" probably isn't "neutral" publishing.

Facebook et al. could be big enough to wrangle the regulatory burden of existing without these protections. But many proposed 230 "reforms" could scare off anyone smaller, creating a regulatory moat that keeps Facebook at the top in perpetuity.

View on HN

Yes, believe it or not I am questioning whether or not I should be free from liability if I host a public forum. And my conclusion is: perhaps I should be liable if I stand up a public forum.

You may suggest that would prevent me from creating a user-generated-content application of massive scale without the resources to sufficiently moderate it. And again, yes - maybe that should be a requirement of me doing such a thing.

It isn't like the only kind of business a person could create on the internet is one that surrounds the aggregation of user generated content. If it killed that entire class of business ... I am not sure we would lose very much of value that couldn't be replaced by individuals hosting their own content.

> of massive scale

Of even tiny, microscopic scale. Even your personal blog's comments, or the forum for your local club.

And it _still_ won't stop Facebook. It'll only stop _you_. That outcome doesn't sound like the outcome you're saying you may be comfortable with. It sounds like the opposite.

> That outcome doesn't sound like the outcome you're saying you may be comfortable with.

Oh no, I'm considering exactly that. I am saying: if my tiny personal blog has a comment section I would be liable for comments posted there. If that is a burden I can't handle then I should turn off comments. At least in my experience those comment sections are a complete waste of space anyway and the trend I've noticed from the large blogs that are still around (e.g. daringfireball, kottke) is that their comment sections are long gone anyway.

What I am pondering is: would this ruin the Internet? If I couldn't host a public forum if it got beyond my limited means to moderate? If I couldn't have a public comment section? It doesn't seem clear to me the Internet breaks if I am forced to own the responsibility for those things that I allow to be made public through sites I control.

> What I am pondering is: would this ruin the Internet? If I couldn't host a public forum if it got beyond my limited means to moderate?

Do you actually have the means to moderate your forum and fund the legal trouble you might face should you get it wrong? Are you ready for the bad actors who abuse this bottleneck to take down content they don't like? I don't think many people are positioned to handle these burdens, and I think the internet will be ruined as a result.

> What I am pondering is: would this ruin the Internet?

It would break most of how the internet works today. It would prevent most forms of real time, one to many, communication since a human would first have to moderate it.

Best example is public audio/video conferencing. I watched a conference presentation in real time today, which had real time comments in IRC and an audio/video conference question and answer. Neither of which would have been possible if real time moderation was required.

How would moderation even work for audio/video conferences? As far as I can tell it would not work since no moderation could happen in real time and allow for smooth audio/video conferencing. What if we act as a platform though and claim no responsibility for the content that happens? Then there is no ability to set topics or restrict offensive material etc so any random person(or bot since how would you tell the difference) could streaming in offensive videos or loud noise

Loosing most, one to many, real time communication would be throwing out a considerable amount of value.

Do you have solutions for issues like that?

edit clarifying that I am taling about one to many real time communication.

> How would moderation even work for audio/video conferences?

This is already an issue on platforms like Twitch. All Twitch streamers are required by the Twitch ToS to moderate their chats and the streamers face bans if they fail to do so.

Everyone keeps talking about "breaking" the Internet but let's consider what would actually change. Let's say that I am unable to moderate my chat because it is overrun with malicious actors. What are my options? I can completely turn off chat for one. I could restrict chat to a manageable vetted subset of chatters that I am comfortable allowing to post with minimal moderation.

In fact, as a streamer I cannot possibly read hundreds or thousands of messages per second. At that point the very idea there is "real time communication" going on is a myth anyway. Every streamer has a way of limiting this deluge of input and moderation is how they are handling it.

> Loosing most, one to many, real time communication would be throwing out a considerable amount of value.

This is where I feel everyone here is taking things too far. You don't lose communication - you become responsible for the communication you allow to be made pubic.

> This is already an issue on platforms like Twitch. All Twitch streamers are required by the Twitch ToS to moderate their chats and the streamers face bans if they fail to do so.

Currently twitch is not held legally responsible if the streamers fail to follow ToS due to Section 230. If Section 230 was dropped however asking the streamers to moderate would not protect them from legal consequences.

I do not see how twitch's current rules would provide them legal protection or provide a solution for moderation of one to many realtime communication if Section 230 was dropped.

Maybe you have some assumptions about how new laws would be put in place post Section 230 that make this work?

> This is where I feel everyone here is taking things too far. You don't lose communication - you become responsible for the communication you allow to be made pubic.

It increases the barrier to entry so many, if not most, forms of one to many real time communication would have to be discontinued due to lack of the ability to moderate in real time. Hence they would be lost along with the value they generate.

> Maybe you have some assumptions about how new laws would be put in place post Section 230 that make this work?

I don't have to have assumptions, I know of real life examples. Not long ago I worked for a company that had a 24 hour live news broadcast. How do you think they handle this?

One specific example I can recall is closed captioning. These are federally required on all TV broadcast channels, including live. The company had a contract for a third party to manually transcribe the broadcast in real time. One initiative we wanted to explore was automating this process using speech recognition software. This was difficult because it turns out that incorrectly transcribed closed captions can lead to lawsuits. So the company that was contracted to handle the closed captions also provided insurance/indemnification against their service causing any lawsuits. No AI speech recognition solutions that were available also included this insurance so it was deemed too risky to switch.

One of the underlying assumptions in all of this Section 230 talk is "it's too hard to moderate the deluge of user generated content" .... so why even bother trying I guess? Why is that the underlying assumption? Why isn't the assumption: You can publish as much user generated content as you are capable of adequately moderating? The idea that the current free-for-all is some inherent "right" is perplexing to me.

> so many, if not most, forms of one to many real time communication would have to be discontinued due to lack of the ability to moderate in real time. Hence they would be lost along with the value they generate.

Again, that doesn't seem like the necessary conclusion. It prevents centralized platforms from publishing massive deluges of unvetted content. They are not in a position to moderate the billions of videos, chat posts, images uploaded each day. So, maybe instead of leaving the free pass we've given them open we question: is it reasonable for single entities to be the sole publisher of billions of unmoderated pieces of content? That doesn't mean all content everywhere goes away. It creates limits on what sole entities can accomplish.

> I don't have to have assumptions, I know of real life examples. Not long ago I worked for a company that had a 24 hour live news broadcast. How do you think they handle this?

You example does not address my original question in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24807064

"How would moderation even work for audio/video conferences?" "Do you have solutions for issues like that?" In your example there must be a delay in broadcasting, for the realtime captioning to happen in. That sort of delay precludes a real time back and forth conversation that is expected from audio/video conferencing.

Secondly I was also asking for a solution that would allow small time actors, like in my example of the conference I attended, to continue to be able to host such conferences with out undue liability or massive investment.

> One of the underlying assumptions in all of this Section 230 talk is "it's too hard to moderate the deluge of user generated content" .... so why even bother trying I guess?

I have not seen that be the main thrust of any argument. To my knowledge Section 230 was in part made to make it easier for more moderation to take place since before some had assumed any level of moderation would induce legal liability, both criminal and finical, for any content that made it past moderation.

> Again, that doesn't seem like the necessary conclusion. It prevents centralized platforms from publishing massive deluges of unvetted content.

As noted above your example above does not apply to my original question an example of a small time actor using audio/video conferencing so I remain unconvinced.

> You example does not address my original question in

We'll have to agree to disagree then. For example, I am taking an online course right now. There is a chat room where people post questions and there is a moderator that elects individuals to speak. There is a private forum where people can post questions. I absolutely expect them to moderate that content to avoid any slanderous statements.

What happens now if someone call into a radio station live call-in program and starts spouting nonsense? Same thing that would happen on the Internet. Let's sketch it out. I don't have money/time to do any moderation at all (or pre-vetting of on air guests) -- Well then I better not do it at all or I better be responsible for the consequences if a nut job gets on. I cut him off ASAP and do my best and what happens? Does a swat team descend and smash down my door? No, maybe I get a cease and desist and nothing more happens, maybe I get filed against in court, maybe I have to defend myself. Maybe I pay for liability insurance (as I mentioned happens in many other similar circumstances). Maybe I am legally compelled to remove from my servers any recorded content related to the incident. Maybe I have to pay damages for the time it was up.

This idea that private real-time conferences like online classes will be impossible in such a circumstance is the hyperbole I am starting to detest. Would there be changes: hopefully yes. And my belief is theses changes would positively effect all online discourse.

Neither example seem to fully apply to my example, for example you did not layout how the online class is viable post Section 230 and the second example does seems to apply to small time actors like the small, volunteer(clarification), conference in my example. If you want to focus on one and elaborate I am willing to follow up.

> This idea that private real-time conferences like online classes will be impossible in such a circumstance is the hyperbole

I have not used the word impossible or implied it. I have said the change would throw out "a considerable amount of value" and I have talked about value generating venues having to shut down.

I do not think you are understanding what I am saying pull 'impossible' from what I have said.

You said: "so many, if not most, forms of one to many real time communication would have to be discontinued"

I take your statement: "would have to be discontinued" as equivalent to impossible. If you'd like to walk back that statement we can continue to discuss.

I have given examples of: Small teams of individuals (e.g. one Twitch streamer + a mod team) broadcasting to tens of thousands of people in real-time including call-in type segments. This happens today and I considered how this would continue if we repeal section 230 (including comparisons to existing public real-time radio call-in segments). I have given examples of medium sized teams presenting classes of 150+ individuals, each of whom can "raise their hand" and be selected by a moderator to take control of the stream to provide their own insights to the group in real time. I considered how this would be possible without Section 230. If neither of those forms of "one to many real time communications" fit your imagination then please be more specific and we can continue.

However, in all of this I still have not heard to my own satisfaction a description of a realistic loss we would have if Section 230 were to be revoked.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com