While I agree to the sentiment of the article, I find it ironic that your commenting about other platforms quality of information yet you haven’t noted anywhere that this is an editorial!
While I agree to the sentiment of the article, I find it ironic that your commenting about other platforms quality of information yet you haven’t noted anywhere that this is an editorial!
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.
While I agree with the editorial content, I’m a bit confused by the title. Nowhere in the article is their any evidence that the politicians sited can’t create PDFs. Since they are mostly lawyers I would expect many of them have used PDFs heavily in their careers. Not that important but the title seems off.
I interpreted this article as a statement regarding the validity of legislators who are grossly "out of touch" with topics they have little knowledge about making decisions that will impact real people whose lives are deeply affected by those decisions.
My question is - so what is new about this dynamic? The US congress in general is a body of mostly rich, mostly old, predominantly elite class, mostly male, largely non-minority, overwhelmingly self serving, self interested, silo mentality, disconnected from reality, 0.1 percenters, and truth challenged parasites living off of the public dole. They get to rule on topics, policies, laws, and directives that they are largely isolated from, except of course if it involves funneling a greater percentage of public money to their own personal benefit. They pass all manner of laws and regulations that they are mostly immune from suffering any ill effects. They aren't worried about their own pensions, health care, security, conscription, personal freedoms, or how they're going to pay for their kid's college. But they sure as hell are going to enact laws and regulations that impact how regular working folks deal with those realities.
This is all simply a manifestation of modern day feudalism in action. Feudalism with a Democratic or Republican facade, take your pick.
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.
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.
The rule is that a company _is_ liable for anything published under their masthead, but Section 230 grants an exception: if you make a good faith effort to moderate what users post, your company _will be_ exempt from prosecution for that content. What company staff post, the company is liable for.
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.
Societal repercussions are beyond the remit of the law, to the extent that those repercussions are themselves legal. So overall, Section 230 is legislation that provides a common-sense balance between fostering discussion (and commerce!) online and engagement in illegal acts.
There are legal scholars who say there are flaws with Section 230; I am not qualified to offer an opinion there. But without Section 230 the WWW as we know it would not exist.
Right now it seems like Congress is trying to legislate protection for their own speech and regulation for everyone else's. I'm not a US citizen, so to some extent I am not affected by this, but it will set a global precedent that I think should be avoided. Again, societal repercussions are beyond the remit of the law. A citizen should be free to call out what they view as unconscionable acts, and the accused should have a right to reply. The bigger problem is that "the masses" are easily swayed, and as humans we tend to believe what we hear or see first - curtailing the freedom of speech in an attempt to mitigate the effects of foolhardy, malevolent or otherwise harmful ideas has been shown to result in worse outcomes than maintaining the status quo. The road to Hell, after all, is paved with good intentions.
It is better overall to educate and train people to overcome their natural tendencies and use their critical thinking skills, allowing truly beneficial ideas to become widespread and thus improve society for all. This will make the job of politicians harder, and they are naturally trying to avoid that outcome (as any of us would). In the end, the only advantage the citizens of a country have over its government is numerical superiority. This situation demands that politicians be made aware of their impending step into disaster by rushing through legislation, and the only way to do that is by having many people repeatedly and continuously tell them that they are being dunderheads for considering this nonsense. The joy of the modern world is that we now have many avenues by which we can make our opinions known; I am sure a quick Google search will reveal many ways to amplify the impact of an individual by automating some of the more popular online tools.
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?
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.
There are, in fact, non-partisan agencies within the US government whose job it is to provide the most objective data possible on issues that typical Congresspeople -- who have a lot of diverse issues to deal with on their plates and can't reasonably be expected to be an expert on all of them -- can and should rely on to provide them with facts. The OMB serves such a function, for example, though it is largely ignored.
The Office of Technology Assessment was dismantled largely by the Republicans in Congress at the time because its reports contradicted some of their claims and established positions on the emerging "information superhighway," which they believed was invented by Al Gore (nope). There are a number of other areas where a similar office would be useful (besides bringing back the OTA), but first you have to get Congresspeople to agree on what is reality -- which is an increasingly difficult task these days -- and to agree to accept the findings of such an office as non-partisan and factually accurate, which again is like asking Putin to stop being evil.
What would really help would be for the voters to stop electing flaming, obvious morons to high office, and to embrace people with technological skills, a grounding in science, and those who value honesty and transparency to the highest degree possible as better candidates instead. Sadly, the problem isn't just the elected officials -- it's just as much the people who elected them.
So anti-vaxxers etc are the misinformation of the month now. We have to control the platform and eliminate anything not good for the people. Only special people can decide what others can digest. This has been proven to be the correct way for society over the ages. It always works: just look at the Spanish Inquisition; the Bible written in modem language was spreading misinformation, kill the printers. The Communists, kill and lock up the Bible sellers, Capitalists ideas must be eliminated too. Kill them or lock them on the other side of the Wall. If the Internet brings freedom to the ppl, lock the Internet down.
Stop the idiots from making mistakes. We the Educated know best/s
Anti-vaxxers aren't the misinformation of the month -- they're the misinformation of the last two decades, and an early warning sign of what bullshit social media can amplify.
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.
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 since 230's absolution was created? 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 would love to know why people want laws that don't actually change anything. It was never the case the a good faith effort would not be sufficient to free a website operator from liability for user content. Find one legal case where a good faith effort was not sufficient in the past.
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.
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?
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?
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.)
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.
Comments
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.
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.
Societal repercussions are beyond the remit of the law, to the extent that those repercussions are themselves legal. So overall, Section 230 is legislation that provides a common-sense balance between fostering discussion (and commerce!) online and engagement in illegal acts.
There are legal scholars who say there are flaws with Section 230; I am not qualified to offer an opinion there. But without Section 230 the WWW as we know it would not exist.
Right now it seems like Congress is trying to legislate protection for their own speech and regulation for everyone else's. I'm not a US citizen, so to some extent I am not affected by this, but it will set a global precedent that I think should be avoided. Again, societal repercussions are beyond the remit of the law. A citizen should be free to call out what they view as unconscionable acts, and the accused should have a right to reply. The bigger problem is that "the masses" are easily swayed, and as humans we tend to believe what we hear or see first - curtailing the freedom of speech in an attempt to mitigate the effects of foolhardy, malevolent or otherwise harmful ideas has been shown to result in worse outcomes than maintaining the status quo. The road to Hell, after all, is paved with good intentions.
It is better overall to educate and train people to overcome their natural tendencies and use their critical thinking skills, allowing truly beneficial ideas to become widespread and thus improve society for all. This will make the job of politicians harder, and they are naturally trying to avoid that outcome (as any of us would). In the end, the only advantage the citizens of a country have over its government is numerical superiority. This situation demands that politicians be made aware of their impending step into disaster by rushing through legislation, and the only way to do that is by having many people repeatedly and continuously tell them that they are being dunderheads for considering this nonsense. The joy of the modern world is that we now have many avenues by which we can make our opinions known; I am sure a quick Google search will reveal many ways to amplify the impact of an individual by automating some of the more popular online tools.
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?
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.
- "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.
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 since 230's absolution was created? 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 would love to know why people want laws that don't actually change anything. It was never the case the a good faith effort would not be sufficient to free a website operator from liability for user content. Find one legal case where a good faith effort was not sufficient in the past.
(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.