Mike Wuerthele

22july2013 said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

trinko said:

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.

trinko said:

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. 

docno42 said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

You can't keep 230, and not allow for user bans. There's literally no way to do it.

Fine.  Make everyone publish their content moderation rules AS WELL AS all content moderation decision making publicly.  

Prove, in full view of sunlight that it's content moderation applied universally and not editorial control of content disguised as selective moderation.

Section 230 protections are a privilege and privileges should be earned and maintained, not granted cart blanche by fiat. 

If it really is simple moderation and there isn't any bias or editorializing then this should be a very un-controversial position.

It's a controversial position because moderation takes time and money. Adding a manifesto after every post gets deleted, or user gets banned makes it even more of a problem, in a world where Google controls the vertical and horizontal and folks that don't work here think that they get a vote about what happened.

What you're asking for, would also require some modifications to the freedom of speech legal rulings over the last 30 years, as they pertain to businesses.

This is why, amongst other reasons, if nearly any of the proposed 230 "reforms" get made as written, these forums are closing.

rezwits said:

Why can't 230 protect the SITE and the POST?  These sites want their cake and eat it too...

If there are no repercussions for the SITE why do they have to remove the POST?

BUT if you want to remove POST, then you don't get 230, you get something else...

Just a thought!

Laters...

As it stands, there are no protections for the site if the post in question is not removed. Protections only apply if there is moderation.

This whole concept hinges on what "something else" is.

You can't keep 230, and not allow for user bans. There's literally no way to do it.