Two Supreme Court cases that could break the internet
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
The whole reason it was needed was because these platforms were worried that if they took down content, it might be seen as implicitly endorsing the content that remained. If that was the case, then they'd be liable for the content that remained. Including things like libel laws... it would be the same as a newspaper printing that content.
They didn't want that, so this was the compromise. You can do light moderation and we'll grant you exemption.
Fast-forward to today. Facebook and Twitter do not do "light moderation". They decide what you see and what you don't... they direct your attention from smaller stories to bigger ones, they spend countless thousands of employee hours catering to the whole experience. If that doesn't count as a modern digital scaled form of editorialization, I don't know what would.
I think a law designed to encourage very light moderation in no way applies to full-fledged algorithmic determination, and that distinction needs to be made and clarified.
If you’re a government that wants to have substantial control over what sorts of content is available to users, then Section 230 is a problem for you. What you don’t want is a hundred million people responsible for their own posts. What you do want is a few dozen services that run the Internet and who you can say are “editorializing” and who thus face all kind of liability unless they obey specific speech codes that politicians then set. You might think that government control over platforms’ speech is prevented by the First Amendment, but that’s the insidious nature of Section 230: if you passed laws controlling how newspapers editorialize, the laws would be struck as violating the First Amendment. If instead you pass laws modifying platforms’ civil liability for users’ speech, it might have the same overall effect as the explicit laws would have on newspapers. Yet some will argue that it’s constitutional to do so.
But surely, you argue, you’re not opposed to letting firms do light moderation. They just can’t do heavy moderation, like kick off users for “political” reasons or use any algorithms to help users discover content. But nobody has a clue what “political” means here and how it differs from spam, and coming up with a definition is not the job of the US government or the courts. Similarly, does anyone seriously think that firms are going to stop using content discovery algorithms and become a pure “common carrier” of all content? Of course they won’t. They’ll just accept whatever speech codes the government develops and they’ll obey them so that they can continue to make money.
It’s depressing to see people on HN walk willingly into a speech-regulation regime for private companies, while claiming that the reason they want this is to ban algorithmic discovery. If you want to ban algorithms, just pass a law doing so and see if it’s constitutional. Instead we get this end-run where the result of these reforms is very likely to be much worse than the current situation and more critically we will still have most of the algorithms and moderation used to justify it.
If publishing laws only required that publisher prevented copyright infringement and sex trafficking, both being a requirement of existing 230, then everything could continue as before and the immunity provided by 230 would be unnecessary. The question is who if any would be harmed.
But that's what governments do, and no idea about a nice society is going to stop that and revert to just "copyright infringement and sex trafficking".
> I think a law designed to encourage very light moderation in no way applies to full-fledged algorithmic determination, and that distinction needs to be made and clarified.
I think this is where the definition of "good faith" in section 230 comes into play. If the platforms are simply removing illegal content and protecting the users from content they don't want to see, that would be good faith in the sense it is putting the interests of the users first.
Now, optimizing feeds to benefit advertisers, or trying to socially engineer democratic elections? That is not good faith.
And yet, some of these actions are done at the request of politicians and government agencies - often with the implicit threat of regulation and anti-trust action.
As much as we need to expect good faith moderation from social media platforms, we also a stronger protections for private entities being strong-armed by state actors.
In the original authors' own words (https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-a...):
> Section 230 protects targeted recommendations to the same extent that it protects other forms of content presentation. [...] That interpretation enables Section 230 to fulfill Congress’s purpose of encouraging innovation in content presentation and moderation. The real-time transmission of user-generated content that Section 230 fosters has become a backbone of online activity, relied upon by innumerable Internet users and platforms alike. Section 230’s protection remains as essential today as it was when the provision was enacted.
The original authors believe that algorithms are protected.
The original authors of Section 230 also don't believe that Section 230 prohibits biased platforms or prohibits platforms from having an agenda. Ron Wyden's take on the "platforms are biased" argument (https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/16/18626779/ron-wyden-sect...):
> Section 230 is not about neutrality. Period. Full stop.
----
That being said, should we have better protections for platforms being strong-armed by state actors? Yes, absolutely. The government has many levers it can pull to influence private speech, and those levers need careful safeguards and we need checks in place to prevent state actors from threatening platforms and using political power to bully them into making specific moderation decisions.
But while that is an admirable goal, it has nothing to do with Section 230, a law that is itself a check on government power to punish companies over moderation decisions.
If you're worried about private entities being influenced by state actors -- as you say "often with the implicit threat of regulation and anti-trust action" -- then giving the government more power to determine what is and isn't "good faith" moderation is heading in the wrong direction and would make the problem even worse.
The solution to the government strong-arming platforms into removing content is not to give the government more power over moderation decisions.
It's important to note that this also needs (though I suspect that it already does) to apply to hosting providers and ISPs. (We need one for banks and payment processors, too, but one step at a time.)
The whole "just make your own Internet" will ultimately be the death of free thought; in some respects, this has already happened. Cloudflare in particular makes a bundle on flat out illegal content; forcing them to moderate everything or just accept everyone's business (and ensuring ISPs can't blackhole routing requests) would likely be an improvement, and not one the enemy can as easily influence (as there's no viable "our payment processors said so" excuse).
Of course, then the enemy will just amp up their efforts through the banks or the app stores, but one less avenue of attack they have is always better.
Can you elaborate with details of what you meant?
Of their terms of service, less so the actual law.
Section 230 is specifically for taking down legal content that the site controller wants gone (without then having endorsed what remains as you say).
Section 230 was specifically to allow MORE than what you call "light moderation". That was always the point.
Another article about Section 230, another top-rated post on HN that's wrong about its origin. Section 230 was always designed from the start to allow companies to moderate legal content. "Light" moderation was never part of the equation.
Look, the people who literally wrote and sponsored Section 230 are still alive today and they are open about what their motivations were, and yet still every single time this subject comes up the top-rated comment on HN is some completely fictional notion about how Section 230 was based on an assumption that feeds wouldn't be algorithmic or wouldn't censor anybody.
And it's just factually wrong, and I don't understand why it's impossible to correct. It's difficult to have a conversation about the political/social merits of a law when people don't even understand the basic factual information about why the law exists.
Imagine if every time an article about Linux came up the top-rated HN post was someone saying that Linux was never really designed to be a desktop OS, it was always intended to just be used on servers and only on servers -- and it didn't matter if Linus Torvalds himself was out making the rounds correcting people on that, we still had to have this conversation every time Linux was mentioned. That's how HN discusses Section 230.
Section 230 was never about preventing algorithms. It was not designed to prevent "heavy" moderation. Again, the people who wrote the law are alive today and have explained their motivations.
----
Edit: it's been pointed out (correctly) that I should probably throw some sources on this. Techdirt's article is a little snarkier than I like, but is generally good (https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...), and even the Wikipedia article on Section 230 is a decent place to start looking at 230 motivations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230). There's also a fairly decent book, "The 26 words that made the modern Internet."
In regards to the parent comment, from Wikipedia:
> Service providers made their Congresspersons aware of these cases, believing that if followed by other courts across the nation, the cases would stifle the growth of the Internet. United States Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA) had read an article about the two cases and felt the decisions were backwards. "It struck me that if that rule was going to take hold then the internet would become the Wild West and nobody would have any incentive to keep the internet civil," Cox stated.
Cox's concern was not that platforms should only do "light" moderation, he wanted a way for platforms to be able to also moderate completely legal but "uncivil" content that would make it hard for platforms to be professional or organized; a "Wild West"
Ron Wyden goes a step further in his recent interviews (https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/8/5/21339766/zuckerberg-priv...):
> "There is not a single word — not a word, not a comma, not a parenthesis, nothing — that suggests that 230 was about neutrality. In fact, what we designed it to be is if you had a conservative website, good for you! Do what you want with it! If you had a progressive website, same thing."
And if that's not convincing to you, consider that both Ron Wyden and Christopher Cox have filed an amicus brief on this very case, saying that they believe Section 230 should protect Google (https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-a...):
> The co-authors reminded the court that internet companies were already recommending content to users when the law went into effect in 1996, and that algorithms are just as important for removing undesirable posts as suggesting content users might want to see.
Really not much that can make it more clear than that, the assertion that Section 230 wasn't designed to protect algorithmic recommendations is factually wrong, this is not something that's a matter of opinion.
I've updated the post above with links to a couple of decent resources and with quotes from the original authors of Section 230, as well as with information about the recent amicus brief they filed to the Supreme Court where they explicitly argue that Section 230 should protect algorithmic recommendations.
I interpret "light moderation" to mean "I disapprove of spam and child porn, but I'm not subject to racism or sexual harassment, and I don't personally know anybody harmed by my conspiracy theories."
> Ron Wyden goes a step further in his recent interviews (https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/8/5/21339766/zuckerberg-priv...):
>> "There is not a single word — not a word, not a comma, not a parenthesis, nothing — that suggests that 230 was about neutrality. In fact, what we designed it to be is if you had a conservative website, good for you! Do what you want with it! If you had a progressive website, same thing."
“The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the United States Congress's first notable attempt to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In the 1997 landmark case Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck the act's anti-indecency provisions.”
… leaving behind the indemnification provided by Section 230 intended to ensure that hosting providers were not liable for user content under the CDA.
That’s it. Nothing more complicated.
> That’s it. Nothing more complicated.
What on earth about those two sentences suggests that algorithmic content wouldn't be protected or that Section 230 would require platforms to be neutral?
Again, and I can't stress this enough: the people who wrote Section 230 disagree with you. You are arguing with people who wrote Section 230 that they are wrong about their motivations about why they wrote it.
Why is this so hard for people? What part of Ron Wyden literally saying "Section 230 is not about neutrality" are people getting hung up on? What wiggle room exists in that quote? When you have the actual authors telling you that they wanted platforms to be free to be Conservative/Liberal biased, and you have the actual authors writing briefs in support of Google for the Supreme Court, where on earth are you getting the idea that Section 230 is just about pornography or illegal content, or that recommendation algorithms wouldn't be protected?
Were you alive and on the internet when the CDA (including section 230) was passed?
I was; the public debate over the CDA and justifications for the Section 230 carve-out bear very little resemblance to what Wyden claims now.
With respect:
A) no it's not, or you wouldn't be on here arguing about intentions. Nobody who actually believes in Death of the Author wastes their time arguing about why a thing was originally made. If people were really embracing Death of the Author in regards to Section 230, we would just be talking about its merits, and that would be great! But instead we're doing this.
B) it's unbelievably silly to ask people to trust your memory as a random internet commenter over both the original authors and over the many academic articles and legal decisions that have been written about Section 230. I guess every single legal precedent about Section 230 is also wrong about its intentions?
C) recommendation algorithms existed when Section 230 was written. They are not a new thing that Congress didn't know about in 1996.
D) biased platforms existed when Section 230 was written. They are not a new thing that Congress didn't know about in 1996.
E) without revealing too much about my age, I was alive in 1996, and while I wasn't particularly involved in the Internet at that point, I've been involved on the Internet long enough to have seen how the conversation on Section 230 has evolved, and "evolved" the right word to use. I think the "algorithms aren't protected" argument is a fairly recent invention. The critiques people are making today are different from the critiques they used to make online.
----
And as respectfully as it is possible for me to phrase this:
Whatever your personal memory is about your motivations or the motivations of the people around you when Section 230 was proposed -- and I am not doubting you that maybe you did have a certain view of Section 230 back then, or maybe you were seeing reporting that phrased the provision in a certain light -- but that perspective is irrelevant to what the law actually says and the way it has been interpreted ever since it came out, and it is so unbelievable that Section 230's origins are so well-documented and there are still people on HN saying, "well, but those sources are all wrong, I remember what was going on at the time."
Maybe you did think of Section 230 a certain way back then. So? I'm supposed to trust you over the original authors?
In what other topic do we tolerate this kind of logic on HN? We seriously are now arguing that the bypartisan politicians who wrote Section 230 are... lying about what they meant? That's where we are right now?
At the very least, you'd better have some sources to back up what you're saying. The "algorithms are different" argument is very recent and from what I've seen doesn't really have any evidence for it suggesting that it is anything more than a fantasy about the law's origins that 230 critics would like to believe is true.
----
Edit: Okay, actually, let's just nip this in the bud rather than argue back and forth. Here's how courts were talking about Section 230 in 1998, only 2 years after it was passed (https://cyber.harvard.edu/property00/jurisdiction/blumenthal...):
> If it were writing on a clean slate, this Court would agree with plaintiffs. AOL has certain editorial rights with respect to the content provided by Drudge and disseminated by AOL, including the right to require changes in content and to remove it; and it has affirmatively promoted Drudge as a new source of unverified instant gossip on AOL. Yet it takes no responsibility for any damage he may cause. AOL is not a passive conduit like the telephone company, a common carrier with no control and therefore no responsibility for what is said over the telephone wires. n11 Because it has the right to exercise editorial control over those with whom it contracts and whose words it disseminates, it would seem only fair to hold AOL to the liability standards applied to a publisher or, at least, like a book store owner or library, to the liability standards applied to a distributor. n12 [52] But Congress has made a different policy choice by providing immunity even where the interactive service provider has an active, even aggressive role in making available content prepared by others. In some sort of tacit quid pro quo arrangement with the service provider community, Congress has conferred immunity from tort liability as an incentive to Internet service providers to self-police the Internet for obscenity and other offensive material, even where the self-policing is unsuccessful or not even attempted.
So in summary, in 1998 courts were saying "yeah, it looks like this is a website making an explicit recommendation because it's actively promoting content instead of acting like a neutral telephone network, and we actually personally don't think that should be protected, but very clearly Congress has protected it and Section 230 applies to it." Their exact words are: "even where the interactive service provider has an active, even aggressive role in making available content prepared by others."
But sure, Section 230 was only about getting rid of porn and had nothing to do with algorithms./s The reality is that even all the way back in 1998, courts already recognized that Section 230 applied to "promoted" content and was not qualified on an assumption that platforms would act like a common carrier. Even early on, courts already recognized that Section 230 protected more content than just pornography or indecency.
if "light moderation" means an escalation path for exceptions, then the major platforms all have this.
Interviewee is a bit biased. I don’t think everyone sympathizes with the goal of taking down more content.
Yes, by definition.
> any of the laws barring communicating threats, hate speech, slander, libel, etc
By definition, such laws are incompatible with free speech.
> what's your agenda here
Free speech
There are people for whom abhorrent content is what they prefer and will defend.
And they want this content on mainstream sites so they can feel like they are normal.
I think they want this content on mainstream sites because they know it pisses off people and makes them laugh
The former group sadly does make a great strawman for people who are emotionally hysterical and don't care to think very deeply about the issue though.
Which is an (in my opinion) very inmature position to take. Look at the governments of western Europe, particularily Scandinavia
These cases are not going to stop anyone from publishing their own content via internet, but they might affect Big Tech intermediaries that publish only other people's content and produce no content themselves.
These cases will not stop traditional media organisations that employ journalists from fact-checking and publishing the content they produce.
Even if these cases are decided favourably to the defendants, "tech" companies will continue to publish low quality, low-brow, incendiary, false, "clickbait" content. That is what gets eyeballs. Section 230 is not incentivising them to moderate, as it was intended. Advertising is incentivising them to allow anything that garners more views and "engagement". Section 230 is only providing them with immunity from all manner of litigation around any moderation. There is no incentive to fact-check anything. Even "recommending" terrorrist group videos is apprently fair game.
If they have zero obligation to moderate and no incentive to fact-check, because they have immunity under 230, i.e., Google wins against Gonzalez, then they can grow their once modest websites to gigantic, overpowering size, with a disproportionate amount of influence on the open web.^1
Reframing the situation, the gigantic websites now call themselves "platforms", sharecroppers and serfs are "publishers" and "creators".
Grab a stake in the "Metaverse".
You cannot break something that is already broken.
1. For Big Tech this web feudalism is the Holy Grail. Grow the audience size and reap the advertising revenue. Obviously any proposed change, an improved interpretation of Section 230, that could threaten this status quo is unacceptable to them. But they are not the majority of web users. Was the web created so that a few websites could control the majority of traffic. In their view, yes. That is the only way the web can operate. How convenient.
This was neither illegal nor obscene content. However it had a severe effect on a third party. Arguably, not as severe as the effect that the terrorist group videos that Google recommended had on the Gonzalez family.
I think you misunderstand the intent of section 230. The vision of the bill was to support an internet of relatively free an unconstrained speech. No one expected these platforms to "fact-check" anything, and the moderation was not rule on who was right or wrong, but to mainly give them leeway to keep out genuinely illegal (and to a lesser extent, obscene) content.
How did you reach that conclusion?
The rest of your comment is equally wrong (perhaps even low quality, low brow, incendiary, false), but I have little time to fact check it.
The fact that the CDA and 230 have tilted the internet away from those, by propping up currently large businesses does not mean that's the only way the internet can work.
Perhaps it is worthwhile to ask ourselves what is it that allows such "censorhip" or threats to "free seech" to happen. A few ideas:
1. Big Tech's position as intermediaries, aka "middlemen". Web users and to some degree internet users (cf. "tech" workers) are not expected to communicate with each directly without using Big Tech to do it. All web traffic must be observable by Bog Tech in ways that allow Big Tech to sells its "online advertising services". End result: "Surveillance capitalism".
2. Section 230. Without this immunity from litigation, arguably Big Tech could not "censor" successfully. If they could do so, then why would they oppose any changes to Section 230 interpetation. Of course, neither "censorship" nor "free speech" is really the correct word to describe the activity Big Tech is engaging in that draws controversy. Big Tech promotes certain content. It does not matter how they do it, whether they measure "popularity" or whether they accept payment for placement of ads that look like search results, or "targeted" ads or whatever.
In Gonzalez, the facts are around "recommendations". Unsolicited promotion of certain content to certain users. This is done not at the request of the user, it is not optional. It's done for Google's benefit.
These companies that profit from surveillance and associated advertising are not "neutral". They are not "dumb pipes". Given that they are under no contractual obligations to any web user, only a fool would claim they are "critical infrastructure". They are surveillance, data collection and advertising companies.
Does Big Tech need Section 230 protection in order to continue to pull this off.
When Section 230 was enacted, there were no "tech" companies. Online service providers such as Compuserve, Prodigy and for a while AOL all charged fees. There were contracts between these companies and their users. There was customer service. Users were not ad targets, they were not "the product", they were customers. Users could sue these companies for not performing the job that they were being paid to do. Then came Section 230.
People always envisioned that the internet would be used for commerce. However today "tech" companies and most importantly "Big Tech" try to make all web activity commercial. Everything anyone does using the internet is surveilled with an eye toward its commercial significance, if any.
And that practice is itself, the surveillance of all internet activity, even academic or recreational use, is considered a "business model". Users pay nothing. Why would anyone pay to be surveilled and served with targeted ads. Advertisers pay for the surveillance.
Don't be evil.
Everyone anticipated selling widgets^FN1 over the internet. No one envisioned "tech" companies. Websites with no products for sale that conduct surveillance and collect data about web users as a "business model" and, unsuprisingly, in most cases, cannot turn a profit. No one envisioned a few gigantic websites with billions of pages doing this that manage engorge themselves with advertiser spend and take over the web.
What (who) is Section 230 really for.
If centralisation and single points of failure are undesirable, and Big Tech represents centralisation and gatekeeper chokepoints that can and do "fail", then perhaps it's worth considering that Section 230 protection for Big Tech is what allows this status quo to continue and for the situation to worsen.
FN1. In Bezos' case, books.
That by itself is a problem. For a law like this to survive, someone needs to explain to voters what problems it solves, the way companies take advatage of it, why that's hard to fix, and why it's still worth having.
I wish citizens of the free world would be more careful with their freedoms. Democracy and autocracy is a spectrum, and the slide towards dictatorship, from my experience, could be gradual and subtle.
That is not the current system OR the result of removing s.230. Though removing s230 would mean courts were much much more involved and moderations was much much heavier (or non-existent al-la 4Chan etc).
The eff articulates it better than I ever could. Those alternative services will also fail to exist without section 230.
Something like the old AOL dialup but decentralized like ipfs and per website or with some kind of audit trail.
This just sounds like clickbait.
If you engage in editorializing (read: controlling) content beyond what is necessary to comply with laws and regulations (eg: no child porn, no tangible death threats), then you should be liable for the content you subsequently publish.
Paper media abides by this, there is no reason why internet-based media cannot abide by the same.
Like, I make a website for pregnant women and someone comes and rants about American politics. What the fuck am I supposed to do if I can't delete their comments? Let my project dwindle to shit because I'm "editorializing" content by deleting this obvious off-topic discussion?
Am I now responsible for the opinions of other people because, according to your logic, I now endorse them by not deleting their messages? You've basically reduced all forms of discourse by introducing liability into an open discussion. Someone gives incorrect advice that someone else takes on my forum. They kill their baby. Whops, time for me to go to fucking jail for someone else's opinion.
I think you have a problem with platforms and monopolistic behavior that's designed to colonize your attention.
The fact that searches on the internet are dominated by one private for-profit entity is a problem. The fact that the majority of internet traffic gets siloed into a few websites, which aggressively (and honestly sometimes borderline illegally and definitely morally reprehensibly) snuff out competition is a problem. The fact that registering a domain, setting up an internet connection, and trying to host a website, are all for profit, private driven workflows is a problem. The fact that all of the above can easily be taken away from you, due to a denial of service, which has nothing to do with the legality of the content you host or your opinions, is a problem. All of these are serious problems that require more than a band-aid, sledgehammer solution aimed at section 230.
Yes; do nothing and assume no liablity. If you don't want to assume any liability you don't involve yourself beyond providing a platform. Simple as that.
>I now endorse them by not deleting their messages?
You endorse nothing because you assume no liability by doing nothing (abiding by applicable laws notwithstanding).
>Someone gives incorrect advice that someone else takes on my forum. They kill their baby. Whops, time for me to go to fucking jail for someone else's opinion.
You are not liable for the "incorrect advice" if you did not involve yourself in its creation and publication, beyond providing a platform.
>I think you have a problem with platforms and monopolistic behavior that's designed to colonize your attention.
I have a problem with publishers pretending to be platforms and enjoying the benefits of being both a publisher and a platform while evading all liabilities thereof.
>The fact that searches on the internet are dominated by one private for-profit entity is a problem.
It is, but it is neither here nor there.
>The fact that the majority of internet traffic gets siloed into a few websites, which aggressively (and honestly sometimes borderline illegally and definitely morally reprehensibly) snuff out competition is a problem.
It is, and the removal of section 230 protections would serve to partially alleviate the problem.
>The fact that registering a domain, setting up an internet connection, and trying to host a website, are all for profit, private driven workflows is a problem.
Hosting a website /should/ be a private endeavour for the sake of ensuring free speech. Once upon a time, making your own website (and assuming all the liabilities that entailed) was how you voiced your thoughts on the internet instead of posts on Twitter and Reddit.
>The fact that all of the above can easily be taken away from you, due to a denial of service, which has nothing to do with the legality of the content you host or your opinions, is a problem.
That is a structural problem with how the internet is formed. Tangientially related it may be, it is not directly relevant to the question of free speech.
>All of these are serious problems that require more than a band-aid, sledgehammer solution aimed at section 230.
Removing section 230 would only address some of the problems the internet faces, but it would be a start.
So your solution is to actually do nothing and let the project die? What an awful non-solution.
But if I don't delete posts (other than those I'm legally required to delete), so let all the baby care posts remain I'm free from liability?
So the net result is that my chess forum (and all other forums run by entities that don't have the resources to review every post before allowing it to go public) becomes a topic-free general forum.
And you think this is a good thing!?
So how do you propose forums deal with spam?
Seriously.
That is the price for avoiding liability: To be able to say you had nothing to do with it beyond providing a platform and abiding other applicable laws.
Prepare for a world of spam like: "Your car's extended warranty is about to expire unless you act NOW. Press 1 to connect to a specialist, or press 2 to acknowledge that the FCC should be dismantled."
All of a sudden, removing spam is stifling political speech and is forbidden.
First you agree on the principles, and then you can talk about how they might be implemented and regulated. Do you agree in general that political opinion should not be punished or censored? If not you can just say that, no need to come up with increasingly byzantine ways that it couldn't be made to work.
In principal, I think the 1st amendment protects us from the government censoring speech, not from private parties doing so.
And it's not depending on us sharing those axioms, the point was to establish what the fundamental stance is on the point being debated. Presumably we're commenting on American courts, American laws, affecting Americans and an American corporation, so it seems like a good thing we're using a rather American frame of reference.
They are. The problem is such people want that freedom with none of the liability.
This site would basically die.
Even worse, it would be practically necessary to have the review done by a team of lawyers versed in all possible areas of law that might be open to liability for posted content.
In other words, only Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other tech giants would have the capability to safely moderate user content.
It's a meaningless comparison.
Traditional media produce and own their content. Online media is user generated.
Again: There is no reason internet-based media can't act like their paper counterparts. The only plausible reason is because nobody wants liability, but hey: You modify user generated content in any way, /you the publisher/ are now liable for it.
Social media platforms are default-allow. If they were default-deny, it would take months to get your newsfeed posts approved.
Newspapers were also not designed to be a way for readers to express themselves. Social media platforms exist so that users can express themselves.
I'm not saying that social media companies are doing a good job, or that their moderation practices are good, or that their quest for increasing engagement above all else is good. In fact I wouldn't mind if FB, Twitter, etc. just disappeared tomorrow. But comparing them to newspapers is just not a reasonable thing to do.
The amount of user generated content in comments, letters to the editor etc is tiny and was moderated by a single person.
It is simply incomparable to the estimated 500 million tweets a day by Twitter:
https://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2020/04/14/twitter-statis...
Here's a thought: there's nothing that says that Twitter and friends have to exist. There was a time when being able to comply with the law was part of the business model, not a minor obstacle that needed to be worked around.
As a (purely hypothetical) heroin dealer, I can't run a business if I keep getting thrown in jail. What's the solution?
What's the solution? New legislation that adapts to such a threat to societal welfare. And this is what is effectively happening here with litigation over Section 230 et al. (worth mentioning that it's not even the case that Twitter's business model involves working around the law; Section 230 _is_ the law and it shields Twitter from liability. So there is really no case here like you are describing to begin with.)
The end of society and government is more or less to identify and avoid bad societal outcomes, and an evolving legal system is necessary to keep up with technological and social changes in the world. Maybe you are correct and Twitter shouldn't exist to begin with, alas Twitter exists and other things like Twitter exist. They aren't currently in grave violation of any law to my knowledge, and any law that is to be enacted regarding things like Twitter should be written in light of the current state of the world, which is that Twitter exists and that things like Twitter are easy to create.
They did this so that hypothetical you can't dodge the law by tweaking molecules and that new legislation doesn't have to be enacted every time you come up with a new recipe.
I'm not saying that twitter shouldn't exist, I'm just saying that it and platforms like it don't have to exist in their current state. Section 230 _is_ the workaround that didn't have to be created just so that the platforms could operate outside of the regulations that other publishers are bound by
No. I am simply pointing out that comparing print media to online makes no sense.
Honestly what you've done there is present a good case for why dealing heroin should be legal.
Equality before the law. If your business can't adapt it should die.
Phone companies don't. The traditional choices were "have full control of the content, and take full responsibility for that content" (e.g., newspapers) or "don't attempt to control content, and bear no responsibility for that content" (e.g., telephone companies). Newspapers were legally responsible for what they published, phone companies weren't. The phone company (and other so-called "common carriers") weren't held responsible even if someone used the phone to plan a murder. In exchange for that immunity, they were required to give access to anyone with enough money to pay the monthly bill.
> Online media is user generated.
As are phone calls.
With Section 230, tech companies both have a) full censorship powers and b) no responsibility. Absolute power with no responsibility has always been a recipe for abuse.
In other words, traditional media produce and own content, but there has always been a tremendous amount of user-generated media mixed in.
A social media platform would not be viable if someone had to approve every post before it went live. (Maybe that means that social media platforms should just not exist, but that's not really the specific point we're arguing here.)
The content would be coming thick and fast, the company would have more standing to enforce its terms of service, and you've dodged whatever moderation rules might apply to user-generated content, since it's all work-for-hire by our vast cadre of contractors.
I'm just not convinced that "traditional media own and produce their content" is indicative of anything particularly important, and just muddies the waters surrounding the actual problems at play.
Posting 10,000 links to a shitcoin ICO is not illegal.