So you think that, for example, ycombinator, who provides this forum, should have to be prepared to defend in court every single action it takes that restricts someone's use of this site? (For example, every time a post gets restricted because of downvotes?) Because that's what repealing Section 230 would do.
No, I think that ycombinator, who provides this forum... shouldn't.
This thing where we've traded societal trust for profits for the companies destroying it is a bad choice, and section 230 is what enables it. Let it all burn. Bring back small communities with internal trust relationships. Growth is not an automatic good.
(No, pointing out that I wouldn't be allowed to post this isn't a clever gotcha. The whole point of advocating for change is that it would affect me too.)
Platforms should bear some responsibility for the content they distribute. Particularly when they run algorithms to promote content based on what they think will engage your attention. There should be no "safe haven."
Still wild to me that people advocate for making platforms responsible for user-submitted content on a website that consists entirely of user-submitted content.
Everyone always has some excuse for why they believe their favorite websites and platforms wouldn’t be impacted, but generally these problems would result in a situation where only the big platforms like Facebook could afford to comply and the platforms like Hacker News or all of your favorite forums and chat hangouts would be forced to close because they can’t afford to comply with laws making them liable for user generated content.
Repealing 230 would only consolidate power among the big social sites who can afford to comply and lobby.
> Still wild to me that people advocate for making platforms responsible for user-submitted content on a website that consists entirely of user-submitted content.
In both Meta and Google's case, it has been found that it doesn't "consist entirely of user-submitted content", there is also "their software" promoting and recommending content and allowing to pay for higher visibility, and they should certainly be liable for at least this facet of what they do.
There is also the open question of whether the big tech companies are doing enough to police their platforms, which are all awash with scams, counterfeits and more. Their safeguards for user-generated content are another facet they should be liable for if it is insufficient.
Oh I think sites would be greatly impacted. To the point where most/all user submitted content would need to be moderated. It would completely upend social media and make most comment-based forums impractical to operate at large scale. I think that would be a good thing. We'd be going back to something like the days of newspapers, where letters to the editor were all read and approved by the publisher before they were printed.
You want to go back to an era where only a select few large, powerful outlets could decide what gets published? You see what’s happening with news media and governments threatening news outlets and you want to consolidate to that?
The rest of us would have to beg for their permission to let our words be heard?
I don’t think you’ve thought this fantasy through.
If there is a non-transparent or non-user changable algorithm selecting content to present then 230 protections shouldn't apply. This is different than removing 230 entirely
Repeal section 230!
So you think that, for example, ycombinator, who provides this forum, should have to be prepared to defend in court every single action it takes that restricts someone's use of this site? (For example, every time a post gets restricted because of downvotes?) Because that's what repealing Section 230 would do.
No, I think that ycombinator, who provides this forum... shouldn't.
This thing where we've traded societal trust for profits for the companies destroying it is a bad choice, and section 230 is what enables it. Let it all burn. Bring back small communities with internal trust relationships. Growth is not an automatic good.
(No, pointing out that I wouldn't be allowed to post this isn't a clever gotcha. The whole point of advocating for change is that it would affect me too.)
Why?
Platforms should bear some responsibility for the content they distribute. Particularly when they run algorithms to promote content based on what they think will engage your attention. There should be no "safe haven."
Still wild to me that people advocate for making platforms responsible for user-submitted content on a website that consists entirely of user-submitted content.
Everyone always has some excuse for why they believe their favorite websites and platforms wouldn’t be impacted, but generally these problems would result in a situation where only the big platforms like Facebook could afford to comply and the platforms like Hacker News or all of your favorite forums and chat hangouts would be forced to close because they can’t afford to comply with laws making them liable for user generated content.
Repealing 230 would only consolidate power among the big social sites who can afford to comply and lobby.
> Still wild to me that people advocate for making platforms responsible for user-submitted content on a website that consists entirely of user-submitted content.
In both Meta and Google's case, it has been found that it doesn't "consist entirely of user-submitted content", there is also "their software" promoting and recommending content and allowing to pay for higher visibility, and they should certainly be liable for at least this facet of what they do.
There is also the open question of whether the big tech companies are doing enough to police their platforms, which are all awash with scams, counterfeits and more. Their safeguards for user-generated content are another facet they should be liable for if it is insufficient.
Oh I think sites would be greatly impacted. To the point where most/all user submitted content would need to be moderated. It would completely upend social media and make most comment-based forums impractical to operate at large scale. I think that would be a good thing. We'd be going back to something like the days of newspapers, where letters to the editor were all read and approved by the publisher before they were printed.
You want to go back to an era where only a select few large, powerful outlets could decide what gets published? You see what’s happening with news media and governments threatening news outlets and you want to consolidate to that?
The rest of us would have to beg for their permission to let our words be heard?
I don’t think you’ve thought this fantasy through.
I didn't say anything about a few large, powerful outlets. I said outlets should at least share responsiblity for what they publish.
If there is a non-transparent or non-user changable algorithm selecting content to present then 230 protections shouldn't apply. This is different than removing 230 entirely
230 is vital, but platforms want to be covered by it they need to stop using algorithms for anything (including ads) other than "most recent".
Yes
so the social media dinosaurs can make a legal moat against competitors and politicians can slap down opposition.
who knows.
Meta sits behind 230 to let the pedophile rings roll.
https://time.com/7336204/meta-lawsuit-files-child-safety/