The practical effect will be that a site like this AppleInsider Forum can longer exist.
Cheerleaders of the bill need to consider unanticipated consequences. Comment forums will largely disappear from most fan sites, and the ones that remain will heavily moderate (censor). It's rare that any of them earn enough profit to weather just one lawsuit over content posted by a user.
If this, or similar 230 "reform" bills are passed, the forums here will absolutely be shut down.
Thanks for summing it up very nicely.
Nobody in their right mind would place themselves in a position where they can be held liable for other people's crimes and indiscretions. Likewise, repeal of this provision would not only encourage mass censorship, but instill it as a survival mechanism for anyone bold enough to attempt to provide a public forum that allows open participation.
This bill is just another case of one group saying "Only we can ascertain the truth and we will enforce it as we see fit." This is not a slippery slope, this is an icy cliff. Unfortunately, after the truth decay, hate priming, and "win at any cost" behaviors that have become normalized over the past several years, this bill may gain some traction. The same failings in human nature and twisted cognition that led 900+ attendees of the Jim Jones kool-aid party to be led to the gates of hell by a psychopathic but charismatic leader are still very much in play to this day. It's just a matter of time before the party starts.
What a bunch of garbage.
Want to avoid liability after Section 230 is eliminated? Just have every user who wants to use your forums sign off on a legal document releasing the site from liability. It’s really not that difficult.
The practical effect will be that a site like this AppleInsider Forum can longer exist.
Cheerleaders of the bill need to consider unanticipated consequences. Comment forums will largely disappear from most fan sites, and the ones that remain will heavily moderate (censor). It's rare that any of them earn enough profit to weather just one lawsuit over content posted by a user.
If this, or similar 230 "reform" bills are passed, the forums here will absolutely be shut down.
That might be this site’s reaction, but all it means is a site must choose to act as a nonpartisan forum or act as a publisher exercising editorial control.
230 did not exist until relatively recently, so it would just go back to the way it was before.
This needs to happen.
You probably need to talk to some attorneys about this, like we have. What you're implying here is not all it means for user forums. Your "legal document" you propose in another comment is not unilaterally enforceable across the United States, as liabilities vary, and pre-moderation of all comments made by users prior to posting to ensure that they are in compliance with whatever 230 morphs into isn't cost-effective for anybody.
230 has existed since 1989. 31 years. That is not a short period of time.
The practical effect will be that a site like this AppleInsider Forum can longer exist.
Cheerleaders of the bill need to consider unanticipated consequences. Comment forums will largely disappear from most fan sites, and the ones that remain will heavily moderate (censor). It's rare that any of them earn enough profit to weather just one lawsuit over content posted by a user.
If this, or similar 230 "reform" bills are passed, the forums here will absolutely be shut down.
That might be this site’s reaction, but all it means is a site must choose to act as a nonpartisan forum or act as a publisher exercising editorial control.
230 did not exist until relatively recently, so it would just go back to the way it was before.
This needs to happen.
You probably need to talk to some attorneys about this, like we have. What you're implying here is not all it means.
230 has existed since 1989. 31 years.
Not trying to be glib, but get better lawyers. If users who choose to post can “sign off” on the site’s current terms of use agreement, they can certainly sign off on another form releasing the site from liability. Private contracts are binding, as long as they don’t violate the laws.
The forum and the breaking news are the only reasons I continue to come here. With no forum, I would have to weigh my options.
The practical effect will be that a site like this AppleInsider Forum can longer exist.
Cheerleaders of the bill need to consider unanticipated consequences. Comment forums will largely disappear from most fan sites, and the ones that remain will heavily moderate (censor). It's rare that any of them earn enough profit to weather just one lawsuit over content posted by a user.
If this, or similar 230 "reform" bills are passed, the forums here will absolutely be shut down.
That might be this site’s reaction, but all it means is a site must choose to act as a nonpartisan forum or act as a publisher exercising editorial control.
230 did not exist until relatively recently, so it would just go back to the way it was before.
This needs to happen.
You probably need to talk to some attorneys about this, like we have. What you're implying here is not all it means.
230 has existed since 1989. 31 years.
Get better lawyers. If users who choose to post can “sign off” on the site’s current terms of use agreement, they can certainly sign off on another form releasing the site from liability. Private contracts are binding, as long as they don’t violate the laws.
More context has been added to my post just before you responded, and it's probably worth a read.
You are welcome to believe what you want based on your own opinion of how you want things to work, but you are not factually correct in this matter, as it pertains to AI, and most of the Internet discussion forums.
Several comments above cheering this on. I can almost guarantee those people have no idea of the effects this would have across the board.
There are many ways to accomplish responsibility and moderation on social media websites. This is not one of them. Support of this particular proposal can only come from ignorance and a lack of knowledge. This is not how you make big tech and FB responsible. It would be a complete and utter disaster.
Besides, McConnell will never allow a vote and Biden would never sign it. Grandstanding by politicians who want to pile on and burnish their resume for 2022 elections by falsely claiming all the great things they did for Americans. What a load of pure BS.
You offer no evidence--anecdotal or otherwise--to support your claim that this would be a complete and utter disaster.
Get better lawyers. If users who choose to post can “sign off” on the site’s current terms of use agreement, they can certainly sign off on another form releasing the site from liability. Private contracts are binding, as long as they don’t violate the laws.
More context has been added to my post just before you responded, and it's probably worth a read.
1. Both parties in the US want to punish big tech, and for some reason they feel they can hurt ONLY big tech like FaceBook and Twitter by eliminating Sec.230. Had Twitter and FaceBook not slapped fact checker labels on conservative content, and had Facebook not sold personal data as per Cambridge Analytica, folks in government probably wouldn't be going after them so hard and nobody would be talking about 230.
2. Lawsuits and blood sucking lawyers suck the most. Seriously. I often wish all lawsuits could just be banned. You'd think the world would be worse off in that case, but when you ponder the sheer amount of litigation Americans engage in all the time, it blows the mind. Sometimes you can't turn the other cheek, but we ought to try. There are some benefits to the good old days of the "wild west" style internet we had at one time, where both freedom and lawlessness were allow to reign without too much intervention. There's always a risk to absolute freedom, but I think it's worth it. We need MORE FREEDOM from overbearing governmental regulation, legal threats, and excessive content moderation by online providers of speech, NOT LESS. Eliminate the threat posed by crazy laws and lawyers, and freedom will be the result -- freedom to do good or evil.
The practical effect will be that a site like this AppleInsider Forum can longer exist.
Cheerleaders of the bill need to consider unanticipated consequences. Comment forums will largely disappear from most fan sites, and the ones that remain will heavily moderate (censor). It's rare that any of them earn enough profit to weather just one lawsuit over content posted by a user.
If this, or similar 230 "reform" bills are passed, the forums here will absolutely be shut down.
I have no doubt that's true. The effects would range far and wide with the internet as we know it ceasing to operate. The liability which many providers (and users) would face would outweigh the benefits they might gain or the profits (X-liabilty) they might make.
People and businesses shouldn't be responsible for the speech of others just because they provide resources or services which facilitate that speech or its propagation. And they shouldn't have to choose between not exercising any control whatsoever over speech that happens on their property (or using their facilities) or being liable for any speech which occurs on their property (or using their facilities). That's just untenable and is inconsistent with how liability has traditionally worked - nothwithstanding the bad publisher / distributor / platform distinction which built up in common law.
I'd add that it seems a lot of people don't realize that they - as individuals - are protected by Section 230 just as providers, such as Apple Insider and Twitter, are. The reason we don't face liability for, e.g., retweeting or reposting something written by others, is Section 230. We aren't responsible for the speech of others, and that's as it should be. We are, and should be, responsible for our own speech.
Tulsi Gabbard is a nut case and the GOP has become so corrupt and ugly behind Trump and McConnell, they can’t tolerate being caught in lies and are currently threatening our very democracy.
Company forums are not public and consequently aren’t subject to the 1st Amendment. It’s unreasonable to expect all expression on a company forum to be accurately moderated or moderated to one’s own liking. Section 230 needs to remain.
Section 230 has only existed since 1989 and it isn’t a free pass for everything.
The hyperbole in this thread reminds me a lot of the “end of the world” nonsense people insisted would result as a consequence of eliminating so-called “Net Neutrality”. Obviously, it was all panic talk.
That said, Section 230 really wasn't needed until we got the terrible decision in Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy Services (1995). (Though it might have been seen as needed in anticipation of such bad rulings, or perhaps even in response to the not-as-terrible ruling in Cubby v Compuserve (1991).)
People generally aren't responsible for the speech of others. In some limited contexts common law has held them liable for the speech of others (e.g., for newspapers when it came to so-called letters to the editor). But in most contexts they aren't. Section 230 was putting internet actors back to that status - mostly not being responsible for the speech of others. Some try to frame Section 230 as giving internet providers some kind of special exemption from liability. But that's not really what it does. Rather, it prevents them - as well as internet users - from facing some kind of special liability for the speech of others which they, absent bad court decisions, wouldn't have and which they shouldn't have.
The practical effect will be that a site like this AppleInsider Forum can longer exist.
Cheerleaders of the bill need to consider unanticipated consequences. Comment forums will largely disappear from most fan sites, and the ones that remain will heavily moderate (censor). It's rare that any of them earn enough profit to weather just one lawsuit over content posted by a user.
If this, or similar 230 "reform" bills are passed, the forums here will absolutely be shut down.
Thanks for summing it up very nicely.
Nobody in their right mind would place themselves in a position where they can be held liable for other people's crimes and indiscretions. Likewise, repeal of this provision would not only encourage mass censorship, but instill it as a survival mechanism for anyone bold enough to attempt to provide a public forum that allows open participation.
This bill is just another case of one group saying "Only we can ascertain the truth and we will enforce it as we see fit." This is not a slippery slope, this is an icy cliff. Unfortunately, after the truth decay, hate priming, and "win at any cost" behaviors that have become normalized over the past several years, this bill may gain some traction. The same failings in human nature and twisted cognition that led 900+ attendees of the Jim Jones kool-aid party to be led to the gates of hell by a psychopathic but charismatic leader are still very much in play to this day. It's just a matter of time before the party starts.
What a bunch of garbage.
Want to avoid liability after Section 230 is eliminated? Just have every user who wants to use your forums sign off on a legal document releasing the site from liability. It’s really not that difficult.
Use some common sense.
How would that protect Apple Insider (or other providers) from potential liability to third parties? Apple Insider and I can't, not effectively any way, contractually agree to eliminate rights of third parties. That's what 47 USC §230(c)(1) is about. It's about, e.g., Apple Insider not being liable, to a third party, for what I might say about that third party on Apple Insider's forum. Absent Section 230, no agreement which Apple Insider might require me to consent to would eliminate such liability. I can't release Apple Insider from liability to third parties other than in special circumstances, e.g., based on some kind of power of attorney.
The practical effect will be that a site like this AppleInsider Forum can longer exist.
Cheerleaders of the bill need to consider unanticipated consequences. Comment forums will largely disappear from most fan sites, and the ones that remain will heavily moderate (censor). It's rare that any of them earn enough profit to weather just one lawsuit over content posted by a user.
If this, or similar 230 "reform" bills are passed, the forums here will absolutely be shut down.
That might be this site’s reaction, but all it means is a site must choose to act as a nonpartisan forum or act as a publisher exercising editorial control.
230 did not exist until relatively recently, so it would just go back to the way it was before.
This needs to happen.
You probably need to talk to some attorneys about this, like we have. What you're implying here is not all it means.
230 has existed since 1989. 31 years.
Not trying to be glib, but get better lawyers. If users who choose to post can “sign off” on the site’s current terms of use agreement, they can certainly sign off on another form releasing the site from liability. Private contracts are binding, as long as they don’t violate the laws.
The forum and the breaking news are the only reasons I continue to come here. With no forum, I would have to weigh my options.
Private contracts can be binding. But they generally don't bind third parties.
It wouldn't be feasible for Apple Insider to screen every post to make certain that it didn't include anything that might give rise to liability to a third party - e.g., for defamation. Apple Insider wouldn't, even if it did screen everything, know if certain things might be, e.g., defamatory.
The practical effect will be that a site like this AppleInsider Forum can longer exist.
Cheerleaders of the bill need to consider unanticipated consequences. Comment forums will largely disappear from most fan sites, and the ones that remain will heavily moderate (censor). It's rare that any of them earn enough profit to weather just one lawsuit over content posted by a user.
If this, or similar 230 "reform" bills are passed, the forums here will absolutely be shut down.
That might be this site’s reaction, but all it means is a site must choose to act as a nonpartisan forum or act as a publisher exercising editorial control.
230 did not exist until relatively recently, so it would just go back to the way it was before.
This needs to happen.
You probably need to talk to some attorneys about this, like we have. What you're implying here is not all it means.
230 has existed since 1989. 31 years.
Not trying to be glib, but get better lawyers. If users who choose to post can “sign off” on the site’s current terms of use agreement, they can certainly sign off on another form releasing the site from liability. Private contracts are binding, as long as they don’t violate the laws.
The forum and the breaking news are the only reasons I continue to come here. With no forum, I would have to weigh my options.
Private contracts can be binding. But they generally don't bind third parties.
It wouldn't be feasible for Apple Insider to screen every post to make certain that it didn't include anything that might give rise to liability to a third party - e.g., for defamation. Apple Insider wouldn't, even if it did screen everything, know if certain things might be, e.g., defamatory.
I think you also have to consider what a site like AppleInsider's corporate mission and business goals are. I'd bet, but I could be wrong, that their primary mission isn't to act as a traffic cop for arbitrating disputes between forum members or gatekeeper to prevent bad actors from using their message posting system as a mechanism to facilitate illegal activities.
Yes, there's no way to prevent every possible misuse of a capability that a web site provides. However, when web site owners know that they are under intense scrutiny for providing things that are somewhat peripheral to their primary business goals, they are probably going to jettison anything that creates friction or impedes their business mission. It doesn't even have to rise to the level of being a legal liability. It could simply be to remove a distraction or pain in the ass. No talk of lawyers required.
It's about time! Tech companies can't have it both ways. They can't enjoy protection from liability for content if they are also censoring that content. If they can censor some content, then they must censor all content.
This bill makes a lot of sense...which means it has absolutely no chance of passing.
Horrible bill. It will never pass (hopefully) because it's ridiculous. And no, a company can choose to censor what it wants. That's your right too. As in, don't watch that movie or listen to certain things you don't like. And a company has the same rights. On my blog, I can delete you. I can do what I want...it's a thing about freedom of expression completely aside from 'the First Amendment' which only has to do with government controlling content which is in effect what this bill would do. I'm not sure why anyone would support this unless they are paranoid. Those folks who think Google only censors conservatives or that Twitter should be forced by laws to allow anything anyone posts. And I'd say this bill will have absolutely the opposite effect. Nothing will be posted at all. Anywhere. Ever. So it's a form of censorship on a massive scale as companies recoil from allowing any interaction. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not a right. Having made up shit tagged as 'made up shit' is also an old practice.
The important thing about the bill is that it makes them answerable and legally liable for the crap that they allow on their websites. No more "We're just a platform" BS. Platforms provide the connection and behind-the-scenes infrastructure. When you run a website that posts information and entertainment and you make money out of that information and entertainment through ads, that's not a platform anymore, that's a freaking publisher/broadcaster. They need to be as responsible and answerable for their content as the networks are because they function exactly like them.
This is a tricky issue, one that I see both sides of. One one hand, big tech’s censorship is outrageous, unfair and obvious. On the other, the way this thing is written is terrifying. I think you’ll see even less conservative speech on the major platforms. There is probably a more targeted way of address the liability issue as part of a multi prong approach to reign in big tech. Write it so that platforms with X amount of revenue and users can be sued for ideologically motivated/unequal censorship (based on the argument that the large platforms are now the new public square). But, keep a shield in place regarding their reasonable efforts to prevent illegal activity. In other words, if they take reasonable efforts, however that would be defined, they can’t be held liable for their users’ content.
But that’s just the beginning. Facebook, Google and Twitter need to be investigated for electioneering. Using their market positions to influence elections should be illegal, and likely is. Google is a behemoth and should be broken up (not based on size, but it’s behavior with search, ads, tracking, etc).
This is a tricky issue, one that I see both sides of. One one hand, big tech’s censorship is outrageous, unfair and obvious. On the other, the way this thing is written is terrifying. I think you’ll see even less conservative speech on the major platforms. There is probably a more targeted way of address the liability issue as part of a multi prong approach to reign in big tech. Write it so that platforms with X amount of revenue and users can be sued for ideologically motivated/unequal censorship (based on the argument that the large platforms are now the new public square). But, keep a shield in place regarding their reasonable efforts to prevent illegal activity. In other words, if they take reasonable efforts, however that would be defined, they can’t be held liable for their users’ content.
But that’s just the beginning. Facebook, Google and Twitter need to be investigated for electioneering. Using their market positions to influence elections should be illegal, and likely is. Google is a behemoth and should be broken up (not based on size, but it’s behavior with search, ads, tracking, etc).
That's bull.
If sites don't moderate content they end up like Slashdot, virtually unusable because half the posts are ASCII-art swastikas and white nationalist screeds.
As it is it's impossible for Twitter to keep up with the racists and the idiots who think the election was "rigged".
What concerns me about social media is the unfiltered abuse that can go on there and the way that blatant lies and propaganda spread like wildfire via these platforms. I know a teenager who killed herself after being bullied. There needs to be some better way and part of that is having the site responsible for the content to some degree. The massive amount of misinformation that is bandied around is very unhealthy and has only served to whip up hysteria and bigotry in many situations. I get that the internet needed to be given a free rein when it started out but some regulation or responsibility is needed now just to curb the many times that extreme abuse is going on.
This is a tricky issue, one that I see both sides of. One one hand, big tech’s censorship is outrageous, unfair and obvious. On the other, the way this thing is written is terrifying. I think you’ll see even less conservative speech on the major platforms. There is probably a more targeted way of address the liability issue as part of a multi prong approach to reign in big tech. Write it so that platforms with X amount of revenue and users can be sued for ideologically motivated/unequal censorship (based on the argument that the large platforms are now the new public square). But, keep a shield in place regarding their reasonable efforts to prevent illegal activity. In other words, if they take reasonable efforts, however that would be defined, they can’t be held liable for their users’ content.
But that’s just the beginning. Facebook, Google and Twitter need to be investigated for electioneering. Using their market positions to influence elections should be illegal, and likely is. Google is a behemoth and should be broken up (not based on size, but it’s behavior with search, ads, tracking, etc).
That's bull.
If sites don't moderate content they end up like Slashdot, virtually unusable because half the posts are ASCII-art swastikas and white nationalist screeds.
As it is it's impossible for Twitter to keep up with the racists and the idiots who think the election was "rigged".
What about all the idiots and racists who claim the election wasn’t rigged?
I believe this bill is meant as a fig leaf for Republicans who voted for NDAA 2020. They can now point to this bill and say, "See, we are taking up Section 230 in a separate bill, no need to hold up NDAA."
Even President Trump might use it to avoid the embarrassment of his veto being overridden (NDAA passed the house 335-78 and the Senate 84-13).
This is a tricky issue, one that I see both sides of. One one hand, big tech’s censorship is outrageous, unfair and obvious. On the other, the way this thing is written is terrifying. I think you’ll see even less conservative speech on the major platforms. There is probably a more targeted way of address the liability issue as part of a multi prong approach to reign in big tech. Write it so that platforms with X amount of revenue and users can be sued for ideologically motivated/unequal censorship (based on the argument that the large platforms are now the new public square). But, keep a shield in place regarding their reasonable efforts to prevent illegal activity. In other words, if they take reasonable efforts, however that would be defined, they can’t be held liable for their users’ content.
But that’s just the beginning. Facebook, Google and Twitter need to be investigated for electioneering. Using their market positions to influence elections should be illegal, and likely is. Google is a behemoth and should be broken up (not based on size, but it’s behavior with search, ads, tracking, etc).
That's bull.
If sites don't moderate content they end up like Slashdot, virtually unusable because half the posts are ASCII-art swastikas and white nationalist screeds.
As it is it's impossible for Twitter to keep up with the racists and the idiots who think the election was "rigged".
What about all the idiots and racists who claim the election wasn’t rigged?
Yeah, the election wasn't rigged ONLY IF Trump won like in 2016. If trump lost, it is a rigged one even if there is NO evidence to back it up. The fact that trump lost is proof enough that it was rigged, Correct?
The current culture of social media is they do censor conservatives and when the liberals say the same thing, it’s ok. Social media companies can’t be both commons and publishers. If your a publisher you can censor, but if you’re a commons and censor it then you’re infringing on people’s constitutional rights.
I believe that the bill is making sure that if tech companies behaves like a publisher, then they should be treated as such and can’t claim they are commons.
Nope - the only censorship related constitutional right is that the government can't censor the people. Private parties can do whatever they want, and that's how it should be!
Comments
Want to avoid liability after Section 230 is eliminated? Just have every user who wants to use your forums sign off on a legal document releasing the site from liability. It’s really not that difficult.
Use some common sense.
230 has existed since 1989. 31 years. That is not a short period of time.
The forum and the breaking news are the only reasons I continue to come here. With no forum, I would have to weigh my options.
You are welcome to believe what you want based on your own opinion of how you want things to work, but you are not factually correct in this matter, as it pertains to AI, and most of the Internet discussion forums.
Here's my take:
1. Both parties in the US want to punish big tech, and for some reason they feel they can hurt ONLY big tech like FaceBook and Twitter by eliminating Sec.230. Had Twitter and FaceBook not slapped fact checker labels on conservative content, and had Facebook not sold personal data as per Cambridge Analytica, folks in government probably wouldn't be going after them so hard and nobody would be talking about 230.
2. Lawsuits and blood sucking lawyers suck the most. Seriously. I often wish all lawsuits could just be banned. You'd think the world would be worse off in that case, but when you ponder the sheer amount of litigation Americans engage in all the time, it blows the mind. Sometimes you can't turn the other cheek, but we ought to try. There are some benefits to the good old days of the "wild west" style internet we had at one time, where both freedom and lawlessness were allow to reign without too much intervention. There's always a risk to absolute freedom, but I think it's worth it. We need MORE FREEDOM from overbearing governmental regulation, legal threats, and excessive content moderation by online providers of speech, NOT LESS. Eliminate the threat posed by crazy laws and lawyers, and freedom will be the result -- freedom to do good or evil.
People and businesses shouldn't be responsible for the speech of others just because they provide resources or services which facilitate that speech or its propagation. And they shouldn't have to choose between not exercising any control whatsoever over speech that happens on their property (or using their facilities) or being liable for any speech which occurs on their property (or using their facilities). That's just untenable and is inconsistent with how liability has traditionally worked - nothwithstanding the bad publisher / distributor / platform distinction which built up in common law.
I'd add that it seems a lot of people don't realize that they - as individuals - are protected by Section 230 just as providers, such as Apple Insider and Twitter, are. The reason we don't face liability for, e.g., retweeting or reposting something written by others, is Section 230. We aren't responsible for the speech of others, and that's as it should be. We are, and should be, responsible for our own speech.
Section 230 was passed in 1996, not 1989.
That said, Section 230 really wasn't needed until we got the terrible decision in Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy Services (1995). (Though it might have been seen as needed in anticipation of such bad rulings, or perhaps even in response to the not-as-terrible ruling in Cubby v Compuserve (1991).)
People generally aren't responsible for the speech of others. In some limited contexts common law has held them liable for the speech of others (e.g., for newspapers when it came to so-called letters to the editor). But in most contexts they aren't. Section 230 was putting internet actors back to that status - mostly not being responsible for the speech of others. Some try to frame Section 230 as giving internet providers some kind of special exemption from liability. But that's not really what it does. Rather, it prevents them - as well as internet users - from facing some kind of special liability for the speech of others which they, absent bad court decisions, wouldn't have and which they shouldn't have.
Private contracts can be binding. But they generally don't bind third parties.
It wouldn't be feasible for Apple Insider to screen every post to make certain that it didn't include anything that might give rise to liability to a third party - e.g., for defamation. Apple Insider wouldn't, even if it did screen everything, know if certain things might be, e.g., defamatory.
Yes, there's no way to prevent every possible misuse of a capability that a web site provides. However, when web site owners know that they are under intense scrutiny for providing things that are somewhat peripheral to their primary business goals, they are probably going to jettison anything that creates friction or impedes their business mission. It doesn't even have to rise to the level of being a legal liability. It could simply be to remove a distraction or pain in the ass. No talk of lawyers required.
I get that the internet needed to be given a free rein when it started out but some regulation or responsibility is needed now just to curb the many times that extreme abuse is going on.
Oh you