Hacker News Reader

Comment by edandersen | Hacker News Reader

I think at this point its clear that there is a legal risk to the platforms themselves if content contrary to the official narrative is left up. Like "sued and held accountable for all Covid damage" levels of legal risk.

A family who lost a loved one who didn't take the vaccine because they read something on Twitter would have a very good case today to take them to the cleaners. And given the political climate they would probably win.

View on HN

I don't think there's a legal theory that gives legs to any sort civil lawsuit, but retaliatory lawmaking from congress definitely is a risk. That's a big part of the point of hauling in tech CEOs to testify to congress about their disinformation concerns; it's a veiled threat to pass legislation against their interest unless something is done about the problem.

And because it's merely a veiled threat, there's no basis for a 1st Amendment lawsuit alleging censorship by the government.

IANAL, but I think the legal danger runs the other way.

If they don't police content, they're covered by Section 230. But if they do police content, and they miss some, then... are they liable for the part that they miss?

Does Section 230 still cover them if they're picking and choosing what they're going to carry?

They are still technically carrying it.

They're covered by Section 230 no matter what. The entire point of the law is to indemnify them for third-party content, even if they moderate.

There's a (mildly sarcastic) article on TechDirt that's pretty comprehensive: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...

Depends on Twitter’s campaign contributions.

Yes. Moderation actions are actually explicitly called out for greater protection under section 230. The "publisher" exception is a lot narrower than people think - it's for when the purported "third party" making the statements isn't actually a third party.

>Does Section 230 still cover them if they're picking and choosing what they're going to carry?

Holy shit. 230 is LITERALLY ABOUT PROTECTING PICKING AND CHOOSING. That's the entire point!! Carrying everything in common is called a "common carrier". Putting out your own personal speech is publishing. Moderation exists in between and can never be perfect. Section 230 was created so that forums could moderate, imperfectly, however they wish without being liable for stuff that other people wrote. It is what makes the internet as we know it possible, including Hacker News itself.

Seriously, how do these memes get started and gain so much traction!? Why has nobody apparently actually read 230? It's TWENTY-SIX WORDS. That's it. Here:

"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."

Does anyone see the word "neutral" or anything like that in there? Any qualifications on "both sides"? No. Because it doesn't exist. Stop.

> Does Section 230 still cover them if they're picking and choosing what they're going to carry?

Section 230 does not prohibit imperfect moderation. In fact, Section 230 exists for mostly this reason, so that platforms can moderate on a best effort and not be held liable as publishers.

It's clear that Twitter is not making a best or even good faith effort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com