carnegie

They are, respectively, gatekeepers of the use of their respective IP. And that's as it should be.

That's impressive, but not all that surprising - especially considering it landed on a sandbar. Depending on the orientation of the iPhone as it fell (and other factors), it might have had a terminal velocity of something like 10 m/s. If that were the case, it would be something like dropping it from the roof of a 2-story house. And if the orientation was different such that it reached a much higher terminal velocity, then it probably would have landed on an edge.

SpamSandwich said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

SpamSandwich said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

gatorguy said:

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.

SpamSandwich said:

dewme said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

gatorguy said:

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.

SpamSandwich said:

cpsro said:

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.

Get informed here:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

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.