Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2OEH8eoCRo0 | Hacker News Reader

I think the bad guy extortionist should be held accountable but if Instagram cannot identify them then Instagram should be held accountable. These platforms need more traceability.

If Instagram were liable for anon bad actors illegal behavior then Instagram would clean up their act with a quickness. There is no incentive to fix anything on these platforms with the current rules.

View on HN

I tend to agree. If you're going to allow people to anonymize their identities with your tools, and further use your tools to facilitate mass crime that results in damages or loss of life, you need to be accountable for that!

I think the only way out of this is a full ID verification system online, which worries me a lot for a bunch of reasons. Not sure how you de-anonymize for safety without invading privacy (the eternal tradeoff).

You could set up a system that supports both. If you want to be verified then you opt-in and then you get a special green check by your name. And also provide a bunch of tools to allow you to filter based on the green check -- e.g., I don't allow DMs from non-green checks or don't show me any content in my feed that isn't from a green check account. So you have the option to decide how much you want to be in the anonymous versus verified world.

I'd go even further and make DM'ing a privilege for only verified accounts.

You could anonymously read and broadcast but anything private should require personal responsibility. I don't see how this would effect ad-revenue or anything either. I imagine it would only bother bullies, trolls and scammers.

I see where this is coming from but making platforms fully liable for user content will make it impossible to start a business that includes (semi-) public user interaction at all. Only FAANG-size companies will be able to afford the legal fees attached to that idea.

Step 1: Make platforms liable—in civil and criminal senses—for content they elect to promote (not just host). "Elect" includes "an algorithm did it". This also includes things like "an algorithm said we should put this ad, which no human at our company has even looked at, in front of this particular person".

There is no step 2. The worst parts of social media and ad clearinghouses (Jesus, all the scams Google promotes and makes money off of) are destroyed, anything remotely defensible survives. Personalized "algo" feeds and "algo" suggestions? Untenable. Customized ads served from a system no human monitors or checks to make sure they're not serving blatant scams at a massive scale? Gone. Both the incentives and ability to try to connect strangers with one another in ways they didn't directly ask for? Greatly diminished.

Ad-supported media survives (for better or worse). People can still communicate just fine. People can still publish without trouble.

> I see where this is coming from but making platforms fully liable for user content will make it impossible to start a business that includes (semi-) public user interaction at all

So? What value have these platforms provided that justifies their existence?

You tell me, you just posted on one of them.

I don't think this is true at all. I think that in an alternate reality where Section 230 never happened then standards would have been created by the industry to tackle the problem.

I'm not sure they should be fully liable but being fully immune is ridiculous. I don't know what the answer is but the current incentives are not working.

There wouldn't have been an industry to begin with. Nothing would have been able to scale, legally, and hobbyist communities would have been annihilated due to bad actors abusing holes in moderation. As will happen if 230 is whittled down, and as is happening in countries where equivalents have been removed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com