I have read a lot from Apple insider. Most of the time you’re pretty levelheaded. But this has to be one of the single most biased articles I’ve ever read coming from your site. It’s obvious that you hate anyone who is even remotely conservative. But do you have to make it quite so blatant. If you really want to look at the issue of the social media companies and section 230. Then perhaps we should also look at the other side of the argument which is that they are ruled by an overly liberal biased side of “fact checkers“ who think they are the arbiters of what is true and what is not. Just because you disagree with it doesn’t make it not true and just because you agree with it doesn’t make it true.
I guess it’s all the rage to jump into a political discussion and then cut off the comments, but can we try and stick to technology for a little while and leave the politics out of this bullshit.
If you ally yourself with QAnon, anti-vaxxers, and/or white supremacists, then feel free to stop reading AppleInsider. In fact, go with my blessing. I will confess to actively being disdainful of all three "groups."
Otherwise, speaking as somebody just to the right of center, there is nothing in here that implies hate for anyone remotely conservative.
And, it's not a political discussion that's the issue -- it's how you all treat each other when one gets out of control.
Aside from Congressional lack of information the basic problem is that Section 230 is being misused.
The intent was that if FB Twitter et al content neutral platforms, like the phone company, and didn't censor anything other than criminal acts, child porn etc, they couldn't be held liable for the content.
That makes sense.
The problem is that FB Twitter etc have become publishers who censor information that disagrees with their ideological agenda. Given that's the case they should no more be immune to lawsuits about their content than the NYT is. If the NYT were to publish a letter that said that I was a Nazi I could sue them and collect a fortune. But with the current policy FB can publish a comment calling me a Nazi and face no potential liability.
I'm more concerned with FB Twitter et al censoring information and using bogus fact checkers than I am about radicals, either Antifa or the Capital rioters, using them. Hence I want FB and Twitter to face real legal liabilities for their viewpoint based censorship.
If silencing voices they don't like, but which aren't calling for criminal activity like the Capitol riot, starts to cost the Tech Titans hundreds of millions of dollars we can only hope that they will return to being content neutral platforms that only censor calls for criminal activity.
The bolded in no way makes a venue a publisher. For instance, AppleInsider is liable for content that we publish under the masthead.
What you folks say here in the forums, as long as we have a good faith moderation effort, we are not responsible for. If we chose to moderate the forums by an idealogical agenda, that STILL doesn't make us a publisher of what THE USER says in the forums.
If you want to convince the supreme court that companies don't have first amendment rights and overturn three decades of precedent, hey, go ahead, because that's what it's going to take to force an ideologically neutral standpoint. But until they don't have those rights, they may moderate as they see fit.
And, the proposals for 230 reform that both parties have put forth? It will mandate MORE moderation, not LESS. Anything even remotely questionable or in the slightest bit untrue will need to be purged.
Generally I'm on your side, Mike, but if you aren't liable for content that's not under your masthead, then why do you need section 230 to absolve you of responsibility for user contributions? It makes no sense. If you aren't guilty then you don't need extra legal protection.
Because 230 is what grants that absolution for content not under our masthead.
Without it, there is no absolution for user-generated content at all. Basically, it provides the same protections that are codified for "Letters to the editor" in print media.
You contradict yourself. You said:
"as long as we have a good faith moderation effort, we are not responsible for [user content]," but you then said,
Without it [section 230], there is no absolution for user-generated content at all.
Do you see the contradiction? In (1) you said that you had to make a good faith effort, but in (2) you said you have absolution for all user content.
I'm not angry with you Mike, but this is a total contradiction. Either you need to perform good faith moderation even with 230 or you do not. Which is it? You have to have an answer.
EDIT: I may see the reason for the confusion. Mike earlier said, "What you folks say here in the forums, as long as we have a good faith moderation effort, we are not responsible for." He did NOT say that this was a direct result of section 230. But maybe that's what he meant. If that's what he meant, then there isn't a contradiction. I was only able to take his statement at face value, and he made no mention that the good faith moderation effort was contingent on section 230. It's odd, I would have thought that the good faith effort statement was still true even before section 230. Otherwise websites would be responsible for everything anyone said even before they could moderate it. That of course makes no sense, so I have trouble believing anyone could think that is true.
This was said at the tail end of the last page, but it bears repeating. There is no contradiction. Like I said, 230 is what provides the protection for publications like AppleInsider assuming moderation of comments, to not be a publisher of user-generated comments.
Before most of the self-published Internet began, the first lawsuits started cropping up, In 1992, the lawsuits about user-generated content began, most notably against Prodigy, but there were a few against other services like AOL and the like. Oakmont versus Prodigy was among the first, and was the highest-profile.
The bigger issues are: #1 Does free speech guarantee the right to spread disinformation and propaganda -- and from who? Does that include, say, Russia?
#2 What is propaganda and disinformation and who decides? Is it black and white or is it shades of grey of both degree of falsehood along with its social & national impact? (Is disinformation about local boro politician worthy of concern?)
That makes it a political issue as well as a conundrum for the democracies: How do you shut off disinformation campaigns designed to destabilize and undermine the nation and its democracy while enabling the free press to report on threats to the same?
These are not easily resolved issues -- unless you go the authoritarian route. Then free speech is whatever el presidente says it is...
Maybe this is just proof that online companies should stick to the business of doing what they do best instead of trying to selectively censor the Internet. No one has ever forced me to read anything, watch anything, or listen to anything that I find offensive. I can choose not to read it, change the channel, walk away, or turn it off.
Apple has no business playing Internet police any more than Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, or any others. It was traveling down the path of censorship that caught the attention of Congress. After all, who decides what is offensive? You? Me? A committee chosen by whom exactly? The Supreme Court? Some tech company?
If you don't like something, don't read it. It's really that simple. Where does it all end?
If I invite you to my lawn, to preach, and you start shouting neo-nazis propaganda or anti-vaxx crap that I disagree with, I'm fully within my right to kick you off my lawn. It's my property - I own it. Same applies for businesses & web sites.
The bigger issues are: #1 Does free speech guarantee the right to spread disinformation and propaganda -- and from who? Does that include, say, Russia?
#2 What is propaganda and disinformation and who decides? Is it black and white or is it shades of grey of both degree of falsehood along with its social & national impact? (Is disinformation about local boro politician worthy of concern?)
That makes it a political issue as well as a conundrum for the democracies: How do you shut off disinformation campaigns designed to destabilize and undermine the nation and its democracy while enabling the free press to report on threats to the same?
These are not easily resolved issues -- unless you go the authoritarian route. Then free speech is whatever el presidente says it is...
There is no guaranteed free speech for a web site. The site is the property of the owner. The owner has the right to decide what's allowed on their property.
Maybe this is just proof that online companies should stick to the business of doing what they do best instead of trying to selectively censor the Internet. No one has ever forced me to read anything, watch anything, or listen to anything that I find offensive. I can choose not to read it, change the channel, walk away, or turn it off.
Apple has no business playing Internet police any more than Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, or any others. It was traveling down the path of censorship that caught the attention of Congress. After all, who decides what is offensive? You? Me? A committee chosen by whom exactly? The Supreme Court? Some tech company?
If you don't like something, don't read it. It's really that simple. Where does it all end?
There are many novels which deal with how this ends and in general... not well.
I have read a lot from Apple insider. Most of the time you’re pretty levelheaded. But this has to be one of the single most biased articles I’ve ever read coming from your site. It’s obvious that you hate anyone who is even remotely conservative. But do you have to make it quite so blatant. If you really want to look at the issue of the social media companies and section 230. Then perhaps we should also look at the other side of the argument which is that they are ruled by an overly liberal biased side of “fact checkers“ who think they are the arbiters of what is true and what is not. Just because you disagree with it doesn’t make it not true and just because you agree with it doesn’t make it true.
I guess it’s all the rage to jump into a political discussion and then cut off the comments, but can we try and stick to technology for a little while and leave the politics out of this bullshit.
If you ally yourself with QAnon, anti-vaxxers, and/or white supremacists, then feel free to stop reading AppleInsider. In fact, go with my blessing. I will confess to actively being disdainful of all three "groups."
Otherwise, speaking as somebody just to the right of center, there is nothing in here that implies hate for anyone remotely conservative.
And, it's not a political discussion that's the issue -- it's how you all treat each other when one gets out of control.
Speaking as somebody who is, politically, about as far right of center as possible... I completely agree with Mike!
The bigger issues are: #1 Does free speech guarantee the right to spread disinformation and propaganda -- and from who? Does that include, say, Russia?
#2 What is propaganda and disinformation and who decides? Is it black and white or is it shades of grey of both degree of falsehood along with its social & national impact? (Is disinformation about local boro politician worthy of concern?)
That makes it a political issue as well as a conundrum for the democracies: How do you shut off disinformation campaigns designed to destabilize and undermine the nation and its democracy while enabling the free press to report on threats to the same?
These are not easily resolved issues -- unless you go the authoritarian route. Then free speech is whatever el presidente says it is...
There is no guaranteed free speech for a web site. The site is the property of the owner. The owner has the right to decide what's allowed on their property.
That's true.
But it is also a national issue as we have seen it used as an attack on our country by foreign enemies as well as to mobilize domestic terrorists used to attack our government and democracy.
It is frankly shocking that anyone in a position of power can haul someone before them and not have even the most basic idea of what is happening with regards to the discussion.
To get someone's name wrong is just the icing on the cake.
I've seen far too many comments by senators and the like which make them come over as bumbling fools. I'm always amazed that they sometimes can't get even the simplest things right or just lay bare their ignorance and not give a hoot.
I used to think it was some kind of distortion on my part and only the most ridiculous cases were hitting my radar but I'm doubting that now, just like I do with some of the so-called 'experts' that get invited to news programmes and simply repeat what they've heard on the Internet and not bothered to fact check for themselves.
It is frankly shocking that anyone in a position of power can haul someone before them and not have even the most basic idea of what is happening with regards to the discussion.
To get someone's name wrong is just the icing on the cake.
I've seen far too many comments by senators and the like which make them come over as bumbling fools. I'm always amazed that they sometimes can't get even the simplest things right or just lay bare their ignorance and not give a hoot.
I used to think it was some kind of distortion on my part and only the most ridiculous cases were hitting my radar but I'm doubting that now, just like I do with some of the so-called 'experts' that get invited to news programmes and simply repeat what they've heard on the Internet and not bothered to fact check for themselves.
The best one to me is still Rep. Hank Johnson questioning Admiral Robert Willard about the troop buildup on Guam:
"My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize," Johnson said. Willard paused and replied, "We don't anticipate that."
A perfect example of the morons in government... just one of the many.
If you have a blank wall that you "donate" to local graffiti artists, and one of those artists puts up something that is extremely offensive and/or illegal (in contravention to the rules you laid out up front), where does the blame lie? It's with the tagger, not the owner of the wall. The owner of the wall may have enabled the tagger to apply their artistic expression, but they did that for every tagger who followed the rules too. The owner of the wall then has a personal choice about whether or not they allow the material in question to remain viewable - if they do, they face consequences from the majority; if they don't, they face consequences from the minority. But if the material is illegal, it must be removed. At this point, what liability is there for the owner of the wall? Section 230 says, none - the owner acted in good faith and is thus immune from legal repercussions. But if the owner of the wall fails to remove the illegal content, the owner becomes jointly liable for the illegal act.
Yes of course everything you say is true. But the same thing would have been true before section 230. If a person acts in good faith and removes illegal material they won't be responsible for what's written on the wall. That truth has been the truth since the beginning of time. Section 230's absolution for good faith censorship can't change what has been eternally true.
Are you saying that before section 230 a website operator was responsible for everything said on their website even if they made a good faith effort to moderate user content? That seems crazy. If you aren't saying that, then what has changed? Are you saying nothing has changed, other than it has been formally stated in a law? What good is a law that restates what is already true?
I am not an expert on this topic, but having read Mike's editorial and posts on this topic, the answer to your question is "Yes". It may sound crazy to you now, but that was what it was, which was why Section 230 came into existence.
That could be what he will say. Then you or Mike should be able to cite a legal judgment in which a good faith effort by a website operator was not enough to free them from liability from illegal user content. Can you find any such incident? Or are you simply afraid of something that has never actually happened in the past?
I already read that just before I wrote my last post to you. My question stands. Can you find any case before section 230 in which a website operator was sued for user content despite having a good faith effort to censor content? I guess the answer is no.
(That page didn't seem to name any case in which a website operator was successfully sued for illegal user content despite having made a good faith effort to censor illegal content.)
That's at least the second time you've wandered ignorantly into a debate without the barest minimum of knowledge or doing any research, demanded that others do it for you, and then not even read it properly when provided. Ironic given that we're talking about good faith efforts.
You are wrong. Each time, for good reason, I wrote the words "despite having made a good faith effort to censor illegal content". In the case of Stratton they made no such effort at all.
Do you understand the difference? Probably not. I don't blame you for being wrong here, because this is actually a complicated subject.
Aside from Congressional lack of information the basic problem is that Section 230 is being misused.
The intent was that if FB Twitter et al content neutral platforms, like the phone company, and didn't censor anything other than criminal acts, child porn etc, they couldn't be held liable for the content.
That makes sense.
The problem is that FB Twitter etc have become publishers who censor information that disagrees with their ideological agenda. Given that's the case they should no more be immune to lawsuits about their content than the NYT is. If the NYT were to publish a letter that said that I was a Nazi I could sue them and collect a fortune. But with the current policy FB can publish a comment calling me a Nazi and face no potential liability.
I'm more concerned with FB Twitter et al censoring information and using bogus fact checkers than I am about radicals, either Antifa or the Capital rioters, using them. Hence I want FB and Twitter to face real legal liabilities for their viewpoint based censorship.
If silencing voices they don't like, but which aren't calling for criminal activity like the Capitol riot, starts to cost the Tech Titans hundreds of millions of dollars we can only hope that they will return to being content neutral platforms that only censor calls for criminal activity.
The bolded in no way makes a venue a publisher. For instance, AppleInsider is liable for content that we publish under the masthead.
What you folks say here in the forums, as long as we have a good faith moderation effort, we are not responsible for. If we chose to moderate the forums by an idealogical agenda, that STILL doesn't make us a publisher of what THE USER says in the forums.
If you want to convince the supreme court that companies don't have first amendment rights and overturn three decades of precedent, hey, go ahead, because that's what it's going to take to force an ideologically neutral standpoint. But until they don't have those rights, they may moderate as they see fit.
And, the proposals for 230 reform that both parties have put forth? It will mandate MORE moderation, not LESS. Anything even remotely questionable or in the slightest bit untrue will need to be purged.
Generally I'm on your side, Mike, but if you aren't liable for content that's not under your masthead, then why do you need section 230 to absolve you of responsibility for user contributions? It makes no sense. If you aren't guilty then you don't need extra legal protection.
Because 230 is what grants that absolution for content not under our masthead.
Without it, there is no absolution for user-generated content at all. Basically, it provides the same protections that are codified for "Letters to the editor" in print media.
You contradict yourself. You said:
"as long as we have a good faith moderation effort, we are not responsible for [user content]," but you then said,
Without it [section 230], there is no absolution for user-generated content at all.
Do you see the contradiction? In (1) you said that you had to make a good faith effort, but in (2) you said you have absolution for all user content.
I'm not angry with you Mike, but this is a total contradiction. Either you need to perform good faith moderation even with 230 or you do not. Which is it? You have to have an answer.
EDIT: I may see the reason for the confusion. Mike earlier said, "What you folks say here in the forums, as long as we have a good faith moderation effort, we are not responsible for." He did NOT say that this was a direct result of section 230. But maybe that's what he meant. If that's what he meant, then there isn't a contradiction. I was only able to take his statement at face value, and he made no mention that the good faith moderation effort was contingent on section 230. It's odd, I would have thought that the good faith effort statement was still true even before section 230. Otherwise websites would be responsible for everything anyone said even before they could moderate it. That of course makes no sense, so I have trouble believing anyone could think that is true.
This was said at the tail end of the last page, but it bears repeating. There is no contradiction. Like I said, 230 is what provides the protection for publications like AppleInsider assuming moderation of comments, to not be a publisher of user-generated comments.
Before most of the self-published Internet began, the first lawsuits started cropping up, In 1992, the lawsuits about user-generated content began, most notably against Prodigy, but there were a few against other services like AOL and the like. Oakmont versus Prodigy was among the first, and was the highest-profile.
In case you didn't see my refutation of Crawley, I'll repeat it here. The Stratton Oakmont case is inapplicable because they were not "making a good faith effort to remove illegal user content." You are doing that. Do you see the difference now? It's a huge difference. That's not a technicality, that's a massive difference. I've been asking over and over again if anyone can cite any case where a good faith effort to remove illegal content was insufficient for protecting a web site operator against legal attacks over that content, and nobody has cited a case.
If you have a blank wall that you "donate" to local graffiti artists, and one of those artists puts up something that is extremely offensive and/or illegal (in contravention to the rules you laid out up front), where does the blame lie? It's with the tagger, not the owner of the wall. The owner of the wall may have enabled the tagger to apply their artistic expression, but they did that for every tagger who followed the rules too. The owner of the wall then has a personal choice about whether or not they allow the material in question to remain viewable - if they do, they face consequences from the majority; if they don't, they face consequences from the minority. But if the material is illegal, it must be removed. At this point, what liability is there for the owner of the wall? Section 230 says, none - the owner acted in good faith and is thus immune from legal repercussions. But if the owner of the wall fails to remove the illegal content, the owner becomes jointly liable for the illegal act.
Yes of course everything you say is true. But the same thing would have been true before section 230. If a person acts in good faith and removes illegal material they won't be responsible for what's written on the wall. That truth has been the truth since the beginning of time. Section 230's absolution for good faith censorship can't change what has been eternally true.
Are you saying that before section 230 a website operator was responsible for everything said on their website even if they made a good faith effort to moderate user content? That seems crazy. If you aren't saying that, then what has changed? Are you saying nothing has changed, other than it has been formally stated in a law? What good is a law that restates what is already true?
I am not an expert on this topic, but having read Mike's editorial and posts on this topic, the answer to your question is "Yes". It may sound crazy to you now, but that was what it was, which was why Section 230 came into existence.
That could be what he will say. Then you or Mike should be able to cite a legal judgment in which a good faith effort by a website operator was not enough to free them from liability from illegal user content. Can you find any such incident? Or are you simply afraid of something that has never actually happened in the past?
I already read that just before I wrote my last post to you. My question stands. Can you find any case before section 230 in which a website operator was sued for user content despite having a good faith effort to censor content? I guess the answer is no.
(That page didn't seem to name any case in which a website operator was successfully sued for illegal user content despite having made a good faith effort to censor illegal content.)
That's at least the second time you've wandered ignorantly into a debate without the barest minimum of knowledge or doing any research, demanded that others do it for you, and then not even read it properly when provided. Ironic given that we're talking about good faith efforts.
You are wrong. Each time, for good reason, I wrote the words "despite having made a good faith effort to censor illegal content". In the case of Stratton they made no such effort at all.
Do you understand the difference? Probably not. I don't blame you for being wrong here, because this is actually a complicated subject.
Since Stratton Oakmont is the plaintiff then you clearly haven't even understood the fundamentals of the case, let alone the details. And Prodigy had taken an editorial role, as the quote clearly states. If you're going to condescend then double check your facts first, or people are going to develop a very low opinion of you.
Aside from Congressional lack of information the basic problem is that Section 230 is being misused.
The intent was that if FB Twitter et al content neutral platforms, like the phone company, and didn't censor anything other than criminal acts, child porn etc, they couldn't be held liable for the content.
That makes sense.
The problem is that FB Twitter etc have become publishers who censor information that disagrees with their ideological agenda. Given that's the case they should no more be immune to lawsuits about their content than the NYT is. If the NYT were to publish a letter that said that I was a Nazi I could sue them and collect a fortune. But with the current policy FB can publish a comment calling me a Nazi and face no potential liability.
I'm more concerned with FB Twitter et al censoring information and using bogus fact checkers than I am about radicals, either Antifa or the Capital rioters, using them. Hence I want FB and Twitter to face real legal liabilities for their viewpoint based censorship.
If silencing voices they don't like, but which aren't calling for criminal activity like the Capitol riot, starts to cost the Tech Titans hundreds of millions of dollars we can only hope that they will return to being content neutral platforms that only censor calls for criminal activity.
The bolded in no way makes a venue a publisher. For instance, AppleInsider is liable for content that we publish under the masthead.
What you folks say here in the forums, as long as we have a good faith moderation effort, we are not responsible for. If we chose to moderate the forums by an idealogical agenda, that STILL doesn't make us a publisher of what THE USER says in the forums.
If you want to convince the supreme court that companies don't have first amendment rights and overturn three decades of precedent, hey, go ahead, because that's what it's going to take to force an ideologically neutral standpoint. But until they don't have those rights, they may moderate as they see fit.
And, the proposals for 230 reform that both parties have put forth? It will mandate MORE moderation, not LESS. Anything even remotely questionable or in the slightest bit untrue will need to be purged.
Generally I'm on your side, Mike, but if you aren't liable for content that's not under your masthead, then why do you need section 230 to absolve you of responsibility for user contributions? It makes no sense. If you aren't guilty then you don't need extra legal protection.
Because 230 is what grants that absolution for content not under our masthead.
Without it, there is no absolution for user-generated content at all. Basically, it provides the same protections that are codified for "Letters to the editor" in print media.
You contradict yourself. You said:
"as long as we have a good faith moderation effort, we are not responsible for [user content]," but you then said,
Without it [section 230], there is no absolution for user-generated content at all.
Do you see the contradiction? In (1) you said that you had to make a good faith effort, but in (2) you said you have absolution for all user content.
I'm not angry with you Mike, but this is a total contradiction. Either you need to perform good faith moderation even with 230 or you do not. Which is it? You have to have an answer.
EDIT: I may see the reason for the confusion. Mike earlier said, "What you folks say here in the forums, as long as we have a good faith moderation effort, we are not responsible for." He did NOT say that this was a direct result of section 230. But maybe that's what he meant. If that's what he meant, then there isn't a contradiction. I was only able to take his statement at face value, and he made no mention that the good faith moderation effort was contingent on section 230. It's odd, I would have thought that the good faith effort statement was still true even before section 230. Otherwise websites would be responsible for everything anyone said even before they could moderate it. That of course makes no sense, so I have trouble believing anyone could think that is true.
This was said at the tail end of the last page, but it bears repeating. There is no contradiction. Like I said, 230 is what provides the protection for publications like AppleInsider assuming moderation of comments, to not be a publisher of user-generated comments.
Before most of the self-published Internet began, the first lawsuits started cropping up, In 1992, the lawsuits about user-generated content began, most notably against Prodigy, but there were a few against other services like AOL and the like. Oakmont versus Prodigy was among the first, and was the highest-profile.
In case you didn't see my refutation of Crawley, I'll repeat it here. The Stratton Oakmont case is inapplicable because they were not "making a good faith effort to remove illegal user content." You are doing that. Do you see the difference now? It's a huge difference. That's not a technicality, that's a massive difference. I've been asking over and over again if anyone can cite any case where a good faith effort to remove illegal content was insufficient for protecting a web site operator against legal attacks over that content, and nobody has cited a case.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Oakmont versus Prodigy was filed BECAUSE Prodigy had boards of staffers that discussed what was allowed user-generated content, and what wasn't. It's clear in the filing, and in the arguments.
230 was erected because of cases like Oakmont versus Prodigy, to provide clarity as it pertains to user-generated content on the internet, and you're welcome to look up the Federal discussion record yourself. 230 is, literally, what provides the legal protection for venues that moderate. Without it, there is no protection for online publications against what users publish at all. You are welcome to discuss it with your elected officials, as well. Or, you can take it up with attorneys, as we have done for the last 21 years, and continue to do so to assess the implications of "reform."
Your opinions on what does -- or what doesn't -- apply to the legal matter and how it pertains to why 230 were formed and how it applies are irrelevant.
If you have a blank wall that you "donate" to local graffiti artists, and one of those artists puts up something that is extremely offensive and/or illegal (in contravention to the rules you laid out up front), where does the blame lie? It's with the tagger, not the owner of the wall. The owner of the wall may have enabled the tagger to apply their artistic expression, but they did that for every tagger who followed the rules too. The owner of the wall then has a personal choice about whether or not they allow the material in question to remain viewable - if they do, they face consequences from the majority; if they don't, they face consequences from the minority. But if the material is illegal, it must be removed. At this point, what liability is there for the owner of the wall? Section 230 says, none - the owner acted in good faith and is thus immune from legal repercussions. But if the owner of the wall fails to remove the illegal content, the owner becomes jointly liable for the illegal act.
Yes of course everything you say is true. But the same thing would have been true before section 230. If a person acts in good faith and removes illegal material they won't be responsible for what's written on the wall. That truth has been the truth since the beginning of time. Section 230's absolution for good faith censorship can't change what has been eternally true.
Are you saying that before section 230 a website operator was responsible for everything said on their website even if they made a good faith effort to moderate user content? That seems crazy. If you aren't saying that, then what has changed? Are you saying nothing has changed, other than it has been formally stated in a law? What good is a law that restates what is already true?
I am not an expert on this topic, but having read Mike's editorial and posts on this topic, the answer to your question is "Yes". It may sound crazy to you now, but that was what it was, which was why Section 230 came into existence.
That could be what he will say. Then you or Mike should be able to cite a legal judgment in which a good faith effort by a website operator was not enough to free them from liability from illegal user content. Can you find any such incident? Or are you simply afraid of something that has never actually happened in the past?
I already read that just before I wrote my last post to you. My question stands. Can you find any case before section 230 in which a website operator was sued for user content despite having a good faith effort to censor content? I guess the answer is no.
(That page didn't seem to name any case in which a website operator was successfully sued for illegal user content despite having made a good faith effort to censor illegal content.)
That's at least the second time you've wandered ignorantly into a debate without the barest minimum of knowledge or doing any research, demanded that others do it for you, and then not even read it properly when provided. Ironic given that we're talking about good faith efforts.
You are wrong. Each time, for good reason, I wrote the words "despite having made a good faith effort to censor illegal content". In the case of Stratton they made no such effort at all.
Do you understand the difference? Probably not. I don't blame you for being wrong here, because this is actually a complicated subject.
Since Stratton Oakmont is the plaintiff then you clearly haven't even understood the fundamentals of the case, let alone the details. And Prodigy had taken an editorial role, as the quote clearly states. If you're going to condescend then double check your facts first, or people are going to develop a very low opinion of you.
Lol. When I replied to him with the wikipedia link yesterday, I was expecting a dumb reply. And I was wondering whether I would be in the same boat as you about couple of weeks back. And the dumb reply came back duly. And you came to my rescue, just before I was about to go nuts:)
On the bolded part, I guess it has already happened with many people in this forum, which is why many people do not bother to respond to his questions and have learnt to ignore him. May be, we should do too, going forward.
If you have a blank wall that you "donate" to local graffiti artists, and one of those artists puts up something that is extremely offensive and/or illegal (in contravention to the rules you laid out up front), where does the blame lie? It's with the tagger, not the owner of the wall. The owner of the wall may have enabled the tagger to apply their artistic expression, but they did that for every tagger who followed the rules too. The owner of the wall then has a personal choice about whether or not they allow the material in question to remain viewable - if they do, they face consequences from the majority; if they don't, they face consequences from the minority. But if the material is illegal, it must be removed. At this point, what liability is there for the owner of the wall? Section 230 says, none - the owner acted in good faith and is thus immune from legal repercussions. But if the owner of the wall fails to remove the illegal content, the owner becomes jointly liable for the illegal act.
Yes of course everything you say is true. But the same thing would have been true before section 230. If a person acts in good faith and removes illegal material they won't be responsible for what's written on the wall. That truth has been the truth since the beginning of time. Section 230's absolution for good faith censorship can't change what has been eternally true.
Are you saying that before section 230 a website operator was responsible for everything said on their website even if they made a good faith effort to moderate user content? That seems crazy. If you aren't saying that, then what has changed? Are you saying nothing has changed, other than it has been formally stated in a law? What good is a law that restates what is already true?
I am not an expert on this topic, but having read Mike's editorial and posts on this topic, the answer to your question is "Yes". It may sound crazy to you now, but that was what it was, which was why Section 230 came into existence.
That could be what he will say. Then you or Mike should be able to cite a legal judgment in which a good faith effort by a website operator was not enough to free them from liability from illegal user content. Can you find any such incident? Or are you simply afraid of something that has never actually happened in the past?
I already read that just before I wrote my last post to you. My question stands. Can you find any case before section 230 in which a website operator was sued for user content despite having a good faith effort to censor content? I guess the answer is no.
(That page didn't seem to name any case in which a website operator was successfully sued for illegal user content despite having made a good faith effort to censor illegal content.)
That's at least the second time you've wandered ignorantly into a debate without the barest minimum of knowledge or doing any research, demanded that others do it for you, and then not even read it properly when provided. Ironic given that we're talking about good faith efforts.
You are wrong. Each time, for good reason, I wrote the words "despite having made a good faith effort to censor illegal content". In the case of Stratton they made no such effort at all.
Do you understand the difference? Probably not. I don't blame you for being wrong here, because this is actually a complicated subject.
Since Stratton Oakmont is the plaintiff then you clearly haven't even understood the fundamentals of the case, let alone the details. And Prodigy had taken an editorial role, as the quote clearly states. If you're going to condescend then double check your facts first, or people are going to develop a very low opinion of you.
Lol. When I replied to him with the wikipedia link yesterday, I was expecting a dumb reply. And I was wondering whether I would be in the same boat as you about couple of weeks back. And the dumb reply came back duly. And you came to my rescue, just before I was about to go nuts:)
On the bolded part, I guess it has already happened with many people in this forum, which is why many people do not bother to respond to his questions and have learnt to ignore him. May be, we should do too, going forward.
I think it's pretty clear that he uses incessant questioning, and disingenuous pedantry to get attention, and to wear people down so that he can say he "won" these dumb arguments he starts. As if it even matters if there were any successful lawsuits before section 230 was made statute.
Putting him back on ignore, where I should have left him.
Comments
Otherwise, speaking as somebody just to the right of center, there is nothing in here that implies hate for anyone remotely conservative.
And, it's not a political discussion that's the issue -- it's how you all treat each other when one gets out of control.
Before most of the self-published Internet began, the first lawsuits started cropping up, In 1992, the lawsuits about user-generated content began, most notably against Prodigy, but there were a few against other services like AOL and the like. Oakmont versus Prodigy was among the first, and was the highest-profile.
#1 Does free speech guarantee the right to spread disinformation and propaganda -- and from who? Does that include, say, Russia?
To get someone's name wrong is just the icing on the cake.
I've seen far too many comments by senators and the like which make them come over as bumbling fools. I'm always amazed that they sometimes can't get even the simplest things right or just lay bare their ignorance and not give a hoot.
I used to think it was some kind of distortion on my part and only the most ridiculous cases were hitting my radar but I'm doubting that now, just like I do with some of the so-called 'experts' that get invited to news programmes and simply repeat what they've heard on the Internet and not bothered to fact check for themselves.
"My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize," Johnson said. Willard paused and replied, "We don't anticipate that."
A perfect example of the morons in government... just one of the many.
Do you understand the difference? Probably not. I don't blame you for being wrong here, because this is actually a complicated subject.
230 was erected because of cases like Oakmont versus Prodigy, to provide clarity as it pertains to user-generated content on the internet, and you're welcome to look up the Federal discussion record yourself. 230 is, literally, what provides the legal protection for venues that moderate. Without it, there is no protection for online publications against what users publish at all. You are welcome to discuss it with your elected officials, as well. Or, you can take it up with attorneys, as we have done for the last 21 years, and continue to do so to assess the implications of "reform."
Your opinions on what does -- or what doesn't -- apply to the legal matter and how it pertains to why 230 were formed and how it applies are irrelevant.
On the bolded part, I guess it has already happened with many people in this forum, which is why many people do not bother to respond to his questions and have learnt to ignore him. May be, we should do too, going forward.
Putting him back on ignore, where I should have left him.