[TheAsprngHacker]

It is my understanding that website owners (especially owners of small websites) rely on Section 230 in order to host user-submitted content (such as comments), as they cannot feasibly moderate all the content and they don't want to be held liable for anything inappropriate or illegal. Am I mistaken?

[gonehome]

The person you’re replying to is mistaken - 230 protects owners by allowing them to moderate, without it the existing legal precedent would force them to do nothing because any moderation would make them responsible for everything (as was the case before 230).

This point is often confused and misunderstood. People think without 230 owners would be liable, but they’d only be liable if they moderated (so they wouldn’t). Without 230 owners would not moderate which would be worse for everyone.

https://stratechery.com/2019/a-framework-for-moderation/

> “ In other words, the act of moderating any of the user-generated content on its forums made Prodigy liable for all of the user-generated content on its forums — in this case to the tune of $200 million. This left services that hosted user-generated content with only one option: zero moderation. That was the only way to be classified as a distributor with the associated shield from liability, and not as a publisher.”

> “The point of Section 230, then, was to make moderation legally viable; this came via the “Good Samaritan” provision”

> “In short, Section 230 doesn’t shield platforms from the responsibility to moderate; it in fact makes moderation possible in the first place. Nor does Section 230 require neutrality: the entire reason it exists was because true neutrality — that is, zero moderation beyond what is illegal — was undesirable to Congress.”

[saurik]

I think the argument is that someone merely hosting something horrible on YouTube isn't really a problem if no one can find it? YouTube could still exist without Section 230, and it would work "great": it wouldn't have any "recommendation" or "discovery" algorithms--which we all know have been shown to actively drag people into extreme positions, and are of a class of systems that optimize for "engagement", which isn't even a healthy thing for a user to have--and would feel more like Instagram (without the discover page that doesn't work well anyway, and without the new recommended feed that maybe you like but a lot of us despise), where if you know about someone you follow them and you can see what the people you follow posted and you can get notifications when those person post new videos and if you dislike them you unfollow them... what sucks about all of these systems right now is someone posts something horrible and you then that content is actively pushed at people all while YouTube is making a profit, and then they can choose how quickly they want to respond to different kinds of moderation, and the whole thing is a bit evil :(.

[gonehome]

This is unrelated to 230.

230 is specifically about giving protection to sites so they can moderate their content without being legally responsible for every thing users post.

It’s an update to older law that was written pre-internet for older style publishers (where they had more editorial control over what was published because the content wasn’t user generated).

It doesn’t have to do with recommendation algorithms.

Killing 230 would force YouTube to have zero content moderation beyond removing illegal content. It would be a bad outcome (which is why 230 was created).

[wahern]

> It’s an update to older law that was written pre-internet for older style publishers

Specifically, common law defamation. The two cases that the authors of Section 230 principally had in mind were Cubby v. CompuServe[1] and Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy[2].

> It doesn’t have to do with recommendation algorithms.

It theoretically could. Section 230 basically immunizes websites from defamation suits. The question in the above two cases was the degree of editorial control that CompuServe and Prodigy exercised. If you exercise insufficient editorial control, then you're not liable for defamatory statements made by users of your platform; you're just a passive entity, no more liable for libel than the telephone company is for slander. If you exercise sufficient editorial control, then you're directly liable for any defamatory statements as if you made them yourself in the first instance, much like a newspaper is liable.

There's no hard-and-fast rule for what constitutes sufficient editorial control, especially as it regards online interactive services. Section 230 stopped the evolution of the caselaw in its tracks. If the bar is relatively low, then some automated recommendation systems conceivably could trigger liability, presumably based on how sophisticated they are. I mean, that is the impetus for removing Section 230 protections afterall--recommendation algorithms that seemingly popularize "fake news", some of which is defamatory in nature. The selection of which user posts to popularize, and the manner in which they're presented, could constitute editorial control the same way a newspaper selects and frames statements taken or revealed by journalists. In fact, it might be worse for some websites--journalists and editors can interject weasel wording[3] to avoid liability, but algorithmic systems aren't that smart. And because defamation is a common law claim, the rules are likely to vary state by state.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....

[3] Or another way to put it: reasonable qualifiers and narrative structure that make it clear the publisher isn't affirming the truth of the matter asserted.

[gonehome]

Thanks for the clarification, that makes sense to me.

[alacombe]

> Killing 230 would force YouTube to have zero content moderation beyond removing illegal content. It would be a bad outcome (which is why 230 was created).

That actually sounds much better than arbitrary moderation.

[azinman2]

I think you’re underestimating how horrible the internet can be. Just go read some 4chan to see what no filter looks like.

[alacombe]

I don't see blood running down the street because of a few teenagers comments. The pre-moderated internet has never been a blood bath.

[stickfigure]

I rely heavily on Youtube's recommendation engine and I think it's fantastic. Not sure what your feed looks like, but mine is full of trains and airplanes and machining videos and history pieces and technology breakdowns and... I wish I had a lot more time to watch.

If you're getting terrible content, I have to think you're the one to blame. You have the like and subscribe buttons, you can train the system. I did.

[totony]

You can train an obscure and undocumented ai. Sounds simple enough.

[stickfigure]

Poe's law seems to be in force here, I can't tell if you're serious.

Thumbs-up stuff you want to see more of, ignore or thumbs-down stuff you want to see less of. Subscribe to channels that seem to have a lot of stuff you like. It seems straightforward?

[totony]

I'm not sure thumbs up/down matter in the algorithm. But that's the problem: we don't know.

I understand you can watch only one type of video, but, from what I,'ve seen, as soon as you watch/click on 1 political video, you get bombarded by it. Also sharing ip with other people seem to affect what you're being shown. I'm surprised that hn seems to think it has that much control over the recommendation algorithm.

[azinman2]

It’s been shown again and again [1] that YouTube endlessly promoted conspiracy videos, fringe thinking, UFO “truth”, and other such garbage for wide swaths of its audience. They are a parasite on the way the algorithm works, feed by clicks.

It’s a bit like blaming the heroin addict who is offered it everywhere they go. Don’t blame the user when this is wide spread.

[1] https://mashable.com/article/youtube-conspiracy-theory-recom...

[Nasrudith]

Unironically yes actually. The inputs are simplified and documentation wouldn't really help anyway given it is based on such a vast dataset it is less trying to drink from a firehose and more trying to drink the entire ocean at once.

[austincheney]

> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

That is section 230 verbatim.

It says a service provider should not be regarded as a publisher of user submitted content, wherein the user submitting said content thus accepts the role of publishers. I disagree and believe the service provider to be the publisher no differently than a magazine showing advertising the magazine did not themselves create. It’s time the laws reflect the reality of the content in question.

[bargl]

You were referring to (1) of the op was refering to (2). IANAL but I think that's what he was describing and makes his point true.

Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

This is section 230 verbatim. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

[gonehome]

If you remove that protection then the owners respond by doing zero moderation so they’ll be classified as distributors (since the alternative of moderating and being legally liable for all user content is not survivable).

230 was created to allow them to moderate their platforms. The context in my post (and the history described in that stratechery link) are critical to fully understand the issue.

What you’re suggesting would lead to the opposite of what you want - it would force them to not moderate at all.

Facebook being legally responsible for the random musings of two billion Facebook users and a magazine being responsible for the ads it runs are not equivalent.

[austincheney]

That is an incorrect interpretation of the law. Regardless of whether you consider them distributors they still retain liability. The point of separating distribution from content creation, such as with the movie industry, is to shield the producer from liabilities associated with business relationships associated with distribution, such as movie theaters, and not end consumers. The end consumer can still sue the movie producer for content that is provably libel. In this regard of online content the distributors would retain liability as well as the creators of advertising content. The creators of advertising content are more challenging to identify though, since their intention is criminal.

I am completely fine with that since content moderation is virtually nonexistent online.

> being legally liable for all user content is not survivable

That is the same argument for opposing slavery. Its a meritless argument.

At any rate the section is most certainly a legal shield both in practice and intent contrary to your claim:

> this section also protects ISPs from liability for restricting access to certain material or giving others the technical means to restrict access to that material

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act

As another example one of my coworkers claims residence in California where he owns an agricultural services business. He supplies labor to orchards to pick nuts and fruit. It costs more for the farms to hire him than for them to hire and manage the field labor directly. The only reason they use him is to shield themselves from liabilities associated with labor law. He is their legal shield in the capacity of a distributor and retains liabilities associated with such.

[gonehome]

> “That is an incorrect interpretation of the law. Regardless of whether you consider them distributors they still retain liability.”

This seems to contradict everything I’ve read, including the case law history, do you have something you’re basing this on beyond personal opinion? Given that you left out the relevant Good Samaritan portion in your previous comment, it feels like you’re arguing from a position of motivated reasoning. I think you’re wrong on this issue, but I’m happy to be shown otherwise.

> “I am completely fine with that since content moderation is virtually nonexistent online.”

This just isn’t true: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/men-are-scum-inside-...

As far as meritless argument, sites that allow user content could not exist if they were responsible for all of it. This is no way comparable to the moral hazard of slavery (which should not exist) so there’s no conflict.

I’m confused by your last point, I’m arguing that it is a legal shield. It’s just that the shield enables them to moderate.

[austincheney]

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._California which was the law in place before section 230 and inspired section 230 for online content submissions.

My last point is that the producer of physical goods does not need a legal shield, because they separate distribution from availability. A web server cannot separate distribution from availability and thus would retain liability for content regardless of its reclassification.

[azinman2]

Should HN be treated as the publisher of your comment?

[austincheney]

Yes, but HN already behaves and moderates as though they are not protected by 230. If they are not the publisher of my comment then who is? I have no relationship with this service: business, legal, or otherwise. I am a user.

[asveikau]

It's interesting, because a lot of times when these matters are discussed people are talking about big music or movie distributors and copyright violations.

Here it is a private individual saying some people on the platform are using his likeness to scam people out of money.

[tmaly]

>beyond what is illegal

Is what is happening with YouTube allowing these videos to stay up illegal? I am not a lawyer, but I am curious to know.

[prawn]

Not a lawyer but I host user content. I've always assumed that if illegal content is brought to my attention and I have not made an attempt to deal with it in a reasonably timely matter, I could bear some legal responsibility for that content.

[austincheney]

Criminally illegal content is called obscene. This content does not fall into that category so and so it is not criminally illegal. It is clearly a form of libel, but there is no cure available because all parties are shielded by law from torts. Had this exact same violation occurred in any other medium of publication there would be no legal shield in place.

For an even more heinous example see the Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory.

[Nasrudith]

That isn't true - the actual damn scammers are still legally liable. Even assuming they made it completely impossible to prove their linkage (unlikely) it would still be just as illegal. For a counterfactual if I somehow figured out something with chaos theory deep enough that doing something utterly innocous like knocking on a door would cause an accident that result in the ceiling of the Whitehouse collapsing and killing all inside I would still be responsible for murder among many other crimes even if nobody could discover it much less prove it. Premeditated planned actions to end many lives and carrying them out are still murder and I would still be responsible for them.

It isn't a legal shield any more than you not being prosecutable for the death of Abraham Lincoln is - because it is the completely wrong person to try to prosecute!

[austincheney]

The scam is illegal, the advertising content is not unless there is a regulation expressly forbidding that messaging by regulation, which falls under the pervue of commercial law. The subject of this conversation is the advertising content and not Bitcoin scams.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity

[austincheney]

The primary interest of section 230 is to allow user submitted content for public exposition without a barrier and typically for an advertising based revenue stream. In this context the profit margins are incredibly tiny and thus utterly reliant upon high transaction frequency. The larger the website the more reliant they are on this protect, because there is more revenue in jeopardy and the cost of moderation scales disproportionately to the profit margin.

The immediate consequence of revoking 230 is hindering anonymous user contributions to websites for public exhibition. The liability associated with such can be substantially marginalized by any number of practices that cripple a public facing ad based revenue model.