Hacker News Reader

Comment by stillpointlab | Hacker News Reader

You are mostly right about my ambivalence (re: liability) but wrong about the conclusion.

> no website could accept user content, ever, and you are effectively suggesting the end of public communication on the internet?

That does not follow. Just like financial services are forced to KYC, there would have to be some similar provision. For example, a site might choose not to have anonymization and then liability passes through a KYC chain. If a site wanted anonymous then the burden would be on moderation before it became public. I think this probably already happens in large extent where images are scanned to avoid bad things appearing on public sites and there is already liability around that.

I know that isn't a popular position. It would change the entire character of the Internet. And it couldn't just be thrust upon people since the current contract is one of promised anonymity (even if that is probably not true wrt state actors).

View on HN

> Just like financial services are forced to KYC, there would have to be some similar provision.

To echo what you said to the other poster, that does not follow:

1. Simply repealing Section 230 would not create some kind any novel "know your poster" legal requirement that doesn't previously exist.

2. Most sites would not have any incentive to do it either, since knowing the original author's identity would not shield them from liability. In some cases it would increase their liability instead!

> If a site wanted anonymous then the burden would be on moderation before it became public.

No, for most sites the opposite would occur.

One of the big things Section 230 does is it declares that the act of moderating does not create involvement and liability for the message. It means you can block things without becoming a sorta-co-author of the things that pass the filter.

Repeal that, and sites will be forced into either (A) basically no moderation so no liability or (B) blocking 99% and letting through the safest 1% they're willing to be liable for.

_______________

Useful links:

* "Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?) " https://www.techdirt.com/2021/10/29/everything-you-know-abou...

* "Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act " - https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

What doesn't follow? Who said we should repeal section 230? Or to do so without replacing it?

Not me, I said I was ambivalent about it; don't put words in my mouth. My words were: "there would have to be some similar provision [to KYC]". Similar, not the same. Not nothing.

Everything else sounds like you imagining/speculating about what some future provision would look like. And your imagined fears don't play into my ambivalence.

Here's my paraphrased view of the comment chain:

1. stillpointlab: "I'm ambivalent about Section 230. Also [other things not discussed further]."

2. applfanboysbgon: "Hey, you can't be ambivalent about Section 230, removing it would be disastrous, any website like HN would be in shambles."

3. stillpointlab: "Websites would be OK if that happened, there would just have to be some provisions around anonymity."

5. Terr_: "Where did this talk of anonymity come from? That's not what Section 230 does."

6. stillpointlab: "Who said anything about removing Section 230? I didn't say that and I wasn't talking about that happening."

7. [Error: Recursion detected]

In other words, the thread was was steered into "what if Section 230 went away" (at #2) and your reply looks as if you recognized that and proceeded to build on it.

Imagine an arts and crafts company. The company wants to create a forum where users can share pictures and advice of their creations. There must be moderators, because unmoderated image boards become cesspools of CSAM and scams. Let's assume Section 230 doesn't exist or at least doesn't provide such a strong shield against liability.

Does a company moderator need to review every post? That might be feasible for a low-population community, but it can be expensive.

But let's assume that's the protocol. A post is submitted and reviewed by a moderator. How does the moderator know if the post violates a law? Is the moderator a lawyer with knowledge of all laws? If not, every post is a roll of the dice for paying unpredictable fines or the end of the business.

Without Section 230, any lawyers' advice for hosting user content would be simple: "Don't."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com