So they are they a publisher?
Digital platforms want to have it both ways - they want to (in some cases manually!!!) curate and censor recommendations, search results, and plain uploads, while also retaining their platform protections.
The libertarian stance on this issue is completely untenable. I know an Olympic gymnast who can’t perform gymnastics that well.
"Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but some libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems."
You can repeal section 230, and the first amendment will still protect every company in the US from doing what you want them to do. There is no version of this where you win, and anti-vax or overtly hateful/conservative content sticks around on YouTube.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
Repealing 230 would just trigger a new set of lawsuits, one of which would end up in front of the Supreme Court, who would then rule it as unconstitutional to force YouTube to publish content it doesn't want to, and we'll be right back where we started, just now with precedent in a Supreme Court case.
https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/05/section-230-as-first-am...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/wall-street-journal-misreads-sec...
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online/vol95/iss1/3/
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section-230-critics-are-...
You are tilting at a windmill, friend.
Also political feasibility in the USA isn’t the end-all be-all. YouTube certainly wants to do business in other countries/regions - such as the EU. Google is a public company, and as such it’s executives have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. Right now, since other megacorps want Google to censor content so their ads don’t run alongside XYZ content that you don’t like, Google is following their fiduciary duties. But if a regulator steps in, it becomes a matter if “oh shit doing business in the EU is more important than doing business with cocacola”
Your entire argument hinges on people not realizing there's a specific legal definition of the word "publisher", which means that no matter what politicians you convince to do what you want, it will never function as expected in the judiciary.
Remember, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. "held that Prodigy was liable as the publisher of the content created by its users because it exercised editorial control over the messages on their bulletin boards in three ways: 1) by posting Content Guidelines for users, 2) by enforcing those guidelines with 'Board Leaders', and 3) by utilizing screening software designed to remove offensive language."
The State removed the above liability via Section 230, which paved the way for YouTube to become the monolith it is today. Reattaching liability to YouTube would force it to choose between an editorial model (Prodigy) or a platform model (CompuServe). It would not get the luxury of the editorial model without paying the corresponding costs of that model. In other words, it would put YouTube on the same playing field as the Washington Post and other traditional news sources.
I notice you ignored completely the articles I linked, and didn't even bother to address the myriad arguments put forward by legal experts on this issue. I assume that's because you have no legal standing whatsoever, and would prefer to just say, "This is what I want and I don't care if the country has to cease to exist first."
Additionally, I find it highly hypocritical that you post such an opinion on a platform that would be shut down, were you to magically get your way. When you have to express your opinion in a way that wouldn't be allowed if your opinion were shared, you might want to rethink your position. It makes your position look wholly unconsidered, which it apparently is.
The big flaw is revealed in the Lawfare blog:
"[CDA 230] merely ensures that courts will quickly dismiss lawsuits that would have been dismissed anyway on First Amendment grounds—but with far less hassle, stress and expense. At the scale of the billions of pieces of content posted by users every day, that liability shield is essential to ensure that website owners aren’t forced to abandon their right to moderate content by a tsunami of meritless but costly litigation."
The principle here isn't whether all the cases have merit or not; it is that every individual gets their day in court. That is, it is up to the courts to decide the merit of a case based on fact, which, of course, is case-dependent [1].
Denying individuals access to the courts makes them bear a cost. That cost should, in truth, be borne by Big Tech and subtracted from its profits.
As for Hacker News, it might not survive in its present form should CDA 230 be repealed. That's OK, though. Perhaps it would become PG's blog, and I would have to start my own blog to comment on matters of the day. That's entirely acceptable, and I don't find it hypocritical.
[1] https://www.rcfp.org/supreme-court-will-not-hear-letter-edit...
There would be one case, it would go to the Supreme Court, and would reinforce the key components of Section 230. YouTube, as a concept, will never go away, no matter what you want, because the 1st Amendment exists. Every individual would not get their day in court, as a precedent would be set and future lawsuits would be thrown out quickly, just as they are today.
Honestly, this smacks of bitter childishness; you want to hurt Google and you think this is the best way to do it. It is not, because it would not. It hurts no one, and would be re-resolved within the very next Supreme Court session, so no more than ~6 months. This childishness is reinforced by your acceptance that the platform you're writing on would not exist. You may not see that as hypocritical, but I and nearly everyone else who reads this does. It, alone, weakens your argument substantially.
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online/vol95/iss1/3/
Newspapers do not enjoy CDA 230 protection. They face actual liabilities and carry liability insurance, a cost. Without CDA 230, these liabilities will not disappear for Big Tech by one case going to the Supreme Court in 6 months. We've seen the opposite with the Supreme Court not hearing at least one letter-to-the-editor libel case for newspapers [1].
Finally, It is not guaranteed that Hacker News would cease to exist. It might need liability insurance or change in some other way. All I know is that things would be different and better.
[1] https://www.rcfp.org/supreme-court-will-not-hear-letter-edit...
This is a temper tantrum, and will never pass legislative or judicial muster. Enjoy YouTube, because its kind of site is sticking around forever.
This reminds me of a temper tantrum someone else threw on Twitter, claiming to leave the platform for an "a censorship-resistant technology: RSS". Did HN suddenly become exclusively based on RSS? No? Interesting. It's almost as if this is a post-hoc argument concocted to try and justify a childish fit.
Edit: You also shared propaganda on your Twitter feed about Hunter Biden's laptop, so it's pretty clear where your allegiances lie. Yet again, another conservative cries foul when an institution doesn't support his ideas.
I'm done here, I only engage with adults, which you clearly are not.
You're right that YouTube will exist as long as CDA 230 exists. However, if CDA 230 is ever repealed, YouTube will have to change as its business model is not protected by the 1st Amendment but by an act of Congress.
Ad hominem arguments are ignored.
— Your source, not mine (not that matters).
Your argument seems to be that CDA 230 doesn't matter, but it is imperative that it not be repealed, which is kind of a nonsensical position.
At this point I'm giving you a way to respond further to demonstrate how unreasonable, fundamentally, people who hold your position actually are. It's clear from what you've written that this isn't a rational position you hold, and so then anyone reading this will have to guess at why, other than rationality, would you want YouTube, Twitter, and HN to cease to exist.
Your Twitter account, in your profile, should give anyone reading this all the information they need to understand your bias.
One of your sources says: No, that is wrong. CDA 230 is a superset of First Amendment protections. I agree with your source. However, I think these additional protections are a bad idea because they absolve YouTube and the like from certain responsibilities:
"Because we [YouTube] are not in a position to adjudicate the truthfulness of postings, we do not remove video postings due to allegations of defamation." [1]
That absolution is ridiculous.
[1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6154230?hl=en&co=G...
And no, my source agrees with me, it literally does not say what you claim. Considering you have a track record of lying about citations, this is unsurprising.
Anything else you feel like lying about? Would prefer more lies that are immediately and obviously false, such as the Notre Dame article not agreeing that Section 230 provides a litigation shield.
I've quoted you twice and paraphrased your argument once by saying that it "seems to be that CDA 230 doesn't matter." Perhaps that was an oversimplification; however, let's be clear, CDA 230 is a stronger litigation shield than the First Amendment. For that reason, it needs to go.
It's not defamation if it's true, which it is. You have lied (made an untrue statement with intent to deceive) about what I've written, and what's been written in cited articles, to further your argument. That, definitionally, makes you a liar (a person who tells lies).
Section 230 being removed will not achieve the goal you desire, which is to hurt Google/Twitter/YCombinator. Any relevant protections that allow them to discretionarily host content that isn't produced by them without liability will remain. This is repeatedly explained in the above cited articles, as well as many additional articles easily found through a quick search of the topic.
As I said before, your opinion is not based in reality, and you are tilting at windmills. I will repeat this for as long as you reply, because bullies like you need to be stood up to and told no.
Besides, the two cases you keep citing are from 91' and '95. They're not relevant now because of how many of the facts are different (as I've said, YouTube and NYT are fundamentally different businesses, with or without Section 230), and could not be used as precedence even if Section 230 were repealed.
My goal isn't to hurt Google/Twitter/YCombinator, but to interject some responsibility.
That responsibility is coming as common law works through systems outside the USA. For instance, consider George Galloway, a far-left UK politician, and his push towards making Google pay for keeping defamatory videos online [1].
Hopefully, once people understand that, to quote the article, "an intrinsic part of freedom of speech is the right to be heard if one thinks one's character has been falsely impugned," the USA will take a serious look at either reforming or, ideally, repealing CDA 230.
[1] https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/colum-kenny-george-gallow...
Again with the lies. Nobody said you were bullying Big Tech, I said you were bullying HN users (me, specifically). You're a bully, and I don't like bullies.
> My goal isn't to hurt Google/Twitter/YCombinator, but to interject some responsibility.
I literally do not believe you. It's clear you don't apply this consistently (hello HN user), and it's clear you have a specific political leaning that undermines your credibility here (Hunter Biden's laptop is something you apparently think is a credible news story, and not blatant propaganda to try and recreate the "Hillary's emails" for the 2020 election cycle).
You apparently want to hurt Big Tech because you are angry your team got censored.
> the USA will take a serious look at either reforming or, ideally, repealing CDA 230.
They will not, no matter how many times you state it as if it were fact.
You tried this "Repeat a bunch of nonsense long enough and hopefully people will eventually let your nonsense go." strategy with your claims about the efficacy of introducing fake rhino horn into the Asian black market to drive down prices, and that didn't work (though honestly wholly on brand, you wanted to lie to admittedly bad people about what you were selling, and as far as I can tell you were attempting to make a profit off of these illicit sales).
You tried again, when you attempted an ICO to (I assume) fund your company in 2017, and your state's government found out and seemingly shut you down, so that nonsense about whether PembiCoin qualified as a security or not (I guess it did qualify, despite your claims) didn't work either.
Now you try to misrepresent your way through a conversation about Section 230, and it's not working, either.
Maybe stop lying? It isn't working for you.
There is a valley of nuance between Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. [1] and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. [2]. All of this nuance was being worked out in the courts via common law principles before Congress short-circuited the process with CDA 230, which turned out to be one of the things that helped facilitate the rise of the Big Tech oligopoly that Congress now decries.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc%...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
There's no such thing as nuance when it comes to corporate liability via third party participation. Companies are going to do the thing which reduces the surface area for litigation as much as possible. Youtube would nuke political speech entirely so fast from anyone not paying them a fee to be broadcast that heads would spin.
"X is a rapist." (Where X is a private figure for simplification.)
The nuance is as follows:
A) Under Cubby without proactive moderation.
The website is not liable for the above speech. All the website needs to do is remove the offending speech once it is made aware of its defamatory nature, maybe via a court order.
B) Under Stratton with proactive moderation.
The website is making an effort to determine the truthfulness of content. As such, letting a defamatory post go through subjects the website to liability.
C) Under CDA 230.
As per YouTube, "Because we are not in a position to adjudicate the truthfulness of postings, we do not remove video postings due to allegations of defamation." [1]
Option C is the worst. It is akin to letting an oil company pick and choose which spills are worth cleaning up. Websites can remove things they think are defamatory to certain people and leave up other things that are defamatory to others with no repercussions.
Ideally, we would live in a world governed by A and B. In that world, sites could choose between moderation and no moderation and the corresponding legal and financial burdens. What we have right now is a mess that works to the advantage of Big Tech.
[1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6154230?hl=en&co=G...
Because Youtube exists in the real world, and because earning money through ads is a hell of a lot better for business than trying to get people to pay for content, C is always the best option for them and for every other content provider AND virtually all small and independent content producers.
Otherwise, companies like Youtube would be forced to gate entrance to supplying content by charging hosting fees for content. You are seeing the tree and missing the rest of the forest.
1.) A and B are not my proposals; They're case law that has been preempted by C.
2.) Copyright falls under the DMCA, which pretty much follows A's procedures (i.e., a takedown notice model) even though the DMCA is a statutory provision. Why are copyright holders so special?
3.) There is no constitutional right to an ad-based business model. Ad-based models evolved under rules similar to B's, but for newspapers, and B is what should govern said models online (unless someone can demonstrate a successful ad-based model under A).
4.) CDA 230 is the golden goose; hence, it won't be repealed. Everyone gets paid to the detriment of society and the individuals who are denied their day in court.