[majormajor]

Those with platforms have always had the opportunity to lie to large groups, but extending that ability to every single person seems like an EXTREMELY BAD "solution."

Historically there's been a burden of proof for wild claims because it's been hard to get a huge mass audience. And people with those audiences were reluctant to repeat whatever wild bullshit was proposed to them if they couldn't vet it themselves.

If you didn't have your own credibility, you had to convince those who did to run your stuff. The cost of this is that it's slower to break things, and some stuff gets missed.

Unmoderated internet platforms with algorithmic jumps between otherwise-unconnected publishers let you borrow and hijack other people's credibility and platforms.

Why those platforms shouldn't be allowed to have editorial control - given that maintaining a certain reputation will still be critical for their long-term success - is beyond me and seems to have obvious un-American problems (infringement on their own private rights).

The trade-off being desired also seems fundamentally bad. More people being misled more quickly seems like a worse situation than slower breaking of news and the ability to suppress some stories, given that we were still able to break those stories you mention in the past. (Of course, I don't know what else might have been more widely reported in the past... I'm having to rely on a "we didn't feel like we were living in a totalitarian dystopia in the 60s-through-80s" assumption.)

[waterhouse]

> Why those platforms shouldn't be allowed

The key word is "allowed". YouTube should be allowed to do everything they have the right to do. They have the right to stop providing all free services (unless they have contractual obligations). They have the right to ban all creators whose names start with "K". They have the right to add a 10-second delay to all page loads. They have the right to put Goatse on their homepage.

However, if they do any of the above things, the rest of us have the right to be disappointed, to think YouTube sucks, and to tell everyone else about it.

So, if they demonstrate that they have no respect for the principle of freedom of speech, we have the right to call them cowardly, un-American, probably unfair in their implementation, counterproductive even assuming their goals, etc.

[heavyset_go]

> However, if they do any of the above things, the rest of us have the right to be disappointed, to think YouTube sucks, and to tell everyone else about it.

> So, if they demonstrate that they have no respect for the principle of freedom of speech, we have the right to call them cowardly, un-American, probably unfair in their implementation, counterproductive even assuming their goals, etc.*

They aren't just saying it sucks, people and politicians are calling for a repeal of Section 230 of the CDA in a knee jerk reaction.

They want to fundamentally shift the liability for user created content online, effectively ensuring that hosting any speech becomes a massive liability for those without billions of dollars comb through user uploads for illegal content.

As a business owner, I don't want to be raided by the FBI in the middle of the night and then go to prison because someone thought it would be funny to upload illegal content to my servers.

[lliamander]

I am not a fan of repealing section 230. I think it'sactuallya pretty inspired piece of law for its time.

But it's original purpose was to remove civil liability for platforms for making an imperfect but good faith attempt to remove illegal content.

The farther we move away from the original motivating case, the less clear it is to me that Internet companies need or deserve the protection afforded to them under the auspices of section 230.

[waterhouse]

Well, Taibbi hasn't mentioned Section 230; I see only two other comments mentioning it. Also, I skimmed an article that says most people don't understand Section 230 (or the context around it—it provides immunity for certain things, and therefore you have to understand "immunity from what?"), so I would hesitate to say too much about it. It's entirely likely that there are some prominent partisans who claim to be in favor of free speech but don't have a principled stance on the subject (e.g. think flag-burning should be illegal), or who are as ignorant as I am on section 230 and less averse to recklessly advocating for political measures they don't understand.

At any rate, as I doubt you'll be surprised to hear, I am also not in favor of business owners getting raided by the FBI because users uploaded illegal content. That sounds like a mechanism for crushing small websites who can't afford their own legal department, thereby protecting large websites against competition.

[stale2002]

> They aren't just saying it sucks, people and politicians are calling for a repeal of Section 230 of the CDA in a knee jerk reaction.

Politicians and citizens have the "right" to change the law.

That's how society works. If those companies don't like it, then they can pack up and move to a different country.

[darepublic]

You reference a totalitarian dystopia and yet you are salivating for widespread censorship to be applied. The great thing about the internet is the freedom of communication which broke the monopoly of mainstream media. If people like you have your way the internet will be as censored as cable tv used to be, in your blessed utopia of the 60s to 80s. Were you alive back then? Have you heard of the Vietnam war. It's not an exaggeration to say your ignorance and stupidity is staggering

[barryhoodlum]

You sound very emotional, maybe take a break?

[miohtama]

This is the best explanation of the dangers of mega publishing platforms I have seen on Hacker News.

[chordalkeyboard]

> Those with platforms have always had the opportunity to lie to large groups, but extending that ability to every single person seems like an EXTREMELY BAD "solution."

Why is it bad? before only a few people could lie to everyone and keep the majority in the dark because they lacked access to information that would expose the lies they were told. Now everyone's voice is amplified and the people who used to have this power are upset because people believe things they don't want them to believe.

> Historically there's been a burden of proof for wild claims because it's been hard to get a huge mass audience.

This seems like a non sequitur. Historically its been hard to spread wild claims for most people because they didn't have a platform. What burden of proof are you referring to?

> And people with those audiences were reluctant to repeat whatever wild bullshit was proposed to them if they couldn't vet it themselves.

Isn't it more likely that they were reluctant to repeat stories unless it benefitted them? Yellow journalism predates the internet by almost 100 years.

> Unmoderated internet platforms with algorithmic jumps between otherwise-unconnected publishers let you borrow and hijack other people's credibility and platforms.

Perhaps. I'm not sure that I could hijack the credibility of (for example) Dr. Fauci by retweeting him. Its more likely that he could voluntarily lend me his credibility by retweeting me.

> Why those platforms shouldn't be allowed to have editorial control - given that maintaining a certain reputation will still be critical for their long-term success - is beyond me and seems to have obvious un-American problems (infringement on their own private rights).

The argument is that they have become large and commonly used enough that they are akin to a public utility. This is an open question and I certainly don't have the answer. Think of it as if the interstate highway system was owned by Procter & Gamble and they began to limit access to the interstate for carriers who delivered their competitors' products, or refused to allow left-handed redheads to access the interstate. A lot of people would say that in that case it would be an appropriate use of the government's regulatory power to nationalize or break up the "P&G Interstate" for the public good. Other people would say that it was within their rights as property owners to decide who they sold roadway access to. You'd have a situation where people's interpretations of fundamental rights conflicted because of technological advancement.

> The trade-off being desired also seems fundamentally bad. More people being misled more quickly seems like a worse situation than slower breaking of news and the ability to suppress some stories, given that we were still able to break those stories you mention in the past. (Of course, I don't know what else might have been more widely reported in the past... I'm having to rely on a "we didn't feel like we were living in a totalitarian dystopia in the 60s-through-80s" assumption.)

Consider that Manufacturing Consent was published in 1988.

[zucker42]

> The argument is that they have become large and commonly used enough that they are akin to a public utility.

While this is an interesting conversation, you don't even have to go this far. You can just argue that rebutting bad ideas is more effective than censoring them and a good video hosting platform should value open discourse, and so YouTube should try to be as content-neutral as possible. If you convince enough YouTube users that open discourse is more important than censoring perceived falsehoods, then it might make more sense for YouTube to commit itself to open discourse.