Ask HN: Is it possible to have a user responsible for the content they share? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Is it possible to have a user responsible for the content they share?

6 pointsatum4714 comments

I've been wondering about that. Say one create a website that let users share content they create. It seems that one thing that needs to scale pretty quickly is content moderation, right? You need to have some sort of system in place to prevent illegal content in your platform. Ok, but is there a legal way of making the content sharer the responsable for any legal action regarding content that was upload to your website? Or is it always radioactive waste, once it's in your grounds you suffer the damage.

View on HN

You need to have some sort of system in place to prevent illegal content in your platform.

More specifically and related to krapp's comment, the system is already in place via section 230 at least for the USA. It is on the website operators to remove illegal content in a timely manor rather than find a fullproof way to prevent it in the first place.

In the practical sense the implementation of this varies by hosting platform, where the site operators reside, how popular the platform is and how much attention it garners political, social, etc... and how diverse an audience the platform has. Small sites can lose their hosting accounts, CDN accounts and DNS registration if they do not remove content in a timely manor. Small VPS providers will nuke an account without hesitation because they stand to lose more than they gain from the tiny bit of money they make from having the account holder.

Bigger sites, especially those operated by big corporations are expected to put more mitigating controls and audit trails in place. Big corporations buy themselves some leniency by creating portals for law enforcement to get audit trail data real time without requiring warrants.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

that is what I was afraid of. Meaning you can't create a content sharing platform being a one dev team, can you? In between writing and maintaining code, make sure the platform is deployed and available and on top of that moderating content and spam... seems infeasible.

I suppose it depends on how the site is implemented. One mitigating control that can make moderation easier is to have role based access controls. Forums referred to this as "ranks". When a person is new and has only posted {x} posts and received only {n} upvotes assuming one implements votes then if their post contains binary content it can be flagged for moderator approval meaning only they and the moderators can see their post until a moderator clicks a button on their post. The forum software phpBB has this ability for example. After the person gains some time+votes then they could be automagically up-ranked to not require moderator approval of their binary content. People will game this system by "warming up" an account and then posting illegal content. That is why moderators are still required.

Beyond this concept you are totally right in that moderators are required to keep the site alive. Small sites must research which VPS providers, server providers, CDN providers and DNS registrars are the most tolerant of user-content-driven sites. In my opinion it is best to create a business account with each and have a unique contract that stipulates what actions both sides are obligated to rather than being subject to the boiler-plate acceptable use policies.

for the sake of this conversation, lets assume I'm creating a blog platform. you create an account and you get a space where you can share text, images and videos (youtube links, for instance). No upvotes, maybe comments.

Do I need to check out all my users content to make sure they are not infringing the law or even worse, having Metallica suing me because one user of my platform linked to a unforgiven video on their post?

Do I need to check out all my users content to make sure they are not infringing the law or even worse, having Metallica suing me

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

At a very minimum you would want to have a way for people to report illegally shared content and your moderation team must respond to those reports in a timely manor, meaning you have moderators that are awake in every daylight timezone. That said, if you have illegal content on your site for a long time because nobody felt it should be reported you would still be at risk. Pirate sites may have content up for weeks, months or years because their primary audience are the people that intentionally share illegal content. When they get busted the number of illegal things will be a factor in the penalty / sentencing phase. Some law enforcement agencies will let the site run for a long time to see how many items they can go after the site operators for. It makes them look good to their superiors and makes for good headlines. If the site is taking in money they may wait even longer so that the bank account seizures have even more funds.

> When they get busted the number of illegal things will be a factor in the penalty / sentencing phase.

Jesus!

As I can gather for the replies here it is impossible to create a content sharing platform without a team.

Not impossible, just not wise. I've seen people try to run user-content-driven sites with one or two people. The site will quickly see comments like "Mods are asleep!" and the site will not last long. There are trolls that will intentionally upload illegal content, then screenshot their own uploads, then report their own uploads to get the site taken offline. And by trolls I mean the site operators and members of competing sites.

If the site is expected to last then a reliable team is required around the clock.

Such a forum might make the users' metadata part of the post, public to all. IP addr etc. No need for "National Security" to call and ask for a poster's information when it's already there, and that removes one of their favorite quiet intimidation tricks.

Still suspect you'd have someone using the law as a tool to remove the platform the first time they had an issue with one of your users. "someone said something bad there once, nuke it from orbit" has a longer tradition than the concept of nukes... or orbits.

Seems weird giving all the info of a person who is just trying to share some poetry that they wrote, out of the bat.

That's exactly the intended effect of Section 230[0]. Users are already responsible for the content they share. That's why strikes against copyrighted content go against user accounts on platforms like Youtube, instead of the company itself.

[0]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Still we are still talking about having a moderating team, right? Once a user get a strike I should let them defend themselves and then making a decision about removing their content.

I'm just trying to see if it's possible to have a platform that deals with user content without having a army of people behind it.

Users of prisons are responsible for their conduct:

https://anarchonomicon.substack.com/p/cocytarchy

As the internet more closely resembles the prison the users grow more responsible. Just surveil everyone.

> Just surveil everyone.

That is the point. I don't want to survey anyone. But I also don't wanna be responsible for their stuff. I don't want to wake up in the middle of the night to an email saying that I'm being sued because someone shared a copyrighted song on my platform (or something worse).

Then go in on Web3. While Crypto as an investment is full of scams, Crypto as an uncensorable anonymous social network is the real deal. Make an anonymous twt clone with posts stored on ipfs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com