Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nextgrid | Hacker News Reader

The problem with Section 230 is that nasty social media companies can use algorithms to curate the content the user sees (often without their knowledge and against their choice) in order to increase engagement & profit off it (including from content that is illegal or promotes illegal activities) but then use Section 230 as an excuse to get away with zero liability.

Maybe S230 should be amended so that once you start curating the information and/or profiting off it, you become a publisher and lose S230 protection?

View on HN

Book publishers and magazines aren’t held to a very serious standard these days.

This isn’t the UK; free speech in the US is number 1.

It’s far more fundamental than any legislation will fix. America is built on aristocratic protectionism like every other nation. Things like the Constitution allowing for copyright protection for a limited time is made effectively forever given the perspective of an average human life span.

It will always end up being gamed.

Personally, I’m tuning out more from consumerism and “the tech industry”. Even before covid I’d grown sick of what became circular debates over big O and comp sci 101 in tech, and routine office life.

I’m learning musical instruments and writing creatively. Ditched my TV. Things like 230 are useful for big tech Corp. Not me. Let them defend it. I’m not interested in performing unpaid political lobbying for them.

> Things like 230 are useful for big tech Corp.

Actually that part of the law protects comment sections in personal blogs: you aren't liable for any comments left on your posts and spam fighting or highlighting etc (or not) of posts doesn't magically transform them into statements of yours.

Spammers have reduced the value of comments on blog posts but they are still important.

> “Things like 230 are useful for big tech Corp. Not me.”

You’re writing this on a site that’s protected by Section 230.

It’s useful for everyone, from the smallest blog to FB, that lets user-generated content through without premoderation. Repealing this law would mean a web with a lot more moderation, not less.

So if I want to run a chess forum, and I remove non-chess posts, I should lose S230 protection?

Add a minimum user number. Say 100k or an arbitrary threshold of substantive complaints. Either you'll be able to afford the traumatized drones in chairs, need to fundraise or get outside help. Fine solution in my book.

What you're really suggesting is that moderated forums with more than 100k users and controlled by a single entity should be de facto prohibited. But then it really has very little to do with Section 230 and you might as well just call it what it is -- antitrust.

No, that's your assumption.

A company should deal with the problems they create.

They could reduce their user base, get crushed by lawsuits and regulations resulting from their reckless endangerment, gross negligence, incompetence, and/or unfettered greed. There's Also the American option of buying politicians and legislation but that's a short sighted and ethically bankrupt decision.

Not a great example. The forum's purpose is so narrow and well defined that most would not care about the moderation, even if it were for profit.

Seems like it starts to get weird if your forum gets millions of chess posts each day, and you pick the posts like "this global conspiracy is why the deep state is trying to ban chess," "how i saved my life by defeating a axe-murdering grandmaster (he is coming for your children too!)," "the 100 sexiest chess players," for the first page of your forum because those stories drive engagement and get you more clicks, and banish the other forum posts to page 103173.

I am curious, how would that be defined a law? Daily users? Unique visitors?

Do you think in that case the government deserves to know much visitors your website has?

Also wasn't the idea of Section 230 to be more for the internet companies? Would repealing mean that the internet provider can be sued for what you do? Wouldn't that be the end result?

For me Section 230 is the cornerstone of the web, and I'd be very against its repeal unless you can show me that the web after that is better/safer for me and for my parents. I am all up for some clarifications as long as they do not limit my right to have a website that won't be sued out of the world for something that someone else does.

And about FB, Twitter, Google, Apple deal with them with a proper tool -- antitrust. Noone will ever explain to me why FB was allowed to buy Whatsapp and Instagram.

I don't know the answers to any of your questions.

This is not a problem with S 230 in my opinion. All these calls to order tech giants to promote specific views (even though I tend to agree with most) are extremely dangerous. I don't remember who was pointing that this all basically forced Google to have a "state department" and a foreign policy. Same with Facebook.

Personally I am of the radical opinion that the source of all this evil is advertisement. I'd simply forbid it. Advertisement is the reason why social media try to increase engagement. It uses advanced manipulation techniques and recent psychological research.

The net would cost people 2 more dollars per month but would be a much saner place without advertisement.

You're a publisher as soon as you put an infrastructure for users to put stuff on the net. Curating or not doesn't matter.

Disclosure: personal opinion, ianal.

In this case would you consider the telephone company a publisher too?

No. I can't publish stuff on their website. They "sell" me the use of the "pipes", not what i do with it.

What about Signal / Whatsapp? What about Matrix / Discord / Slack? Looking for the line you'd like to draw.

Are they physically providing the internet connection? No? Then they're not common carriers and they should have 230 protections.

In one sense yes, but not the one that matters here.

As i said, ianal and it's my own personal opinion. Others here have better expressed my views on the subject. Disruption is not always a good thing. Especially when it has large societal impacts.

If you opinion is about one of the technical meanings of the word publish outside of the reading of the law then your opinion the law.

So yes you're right, but it's not relevant to section 230 at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com