[TameAntelope]

Literally impossible as long as the First Amendment exists. You cannot compel speech with legislation the way you apparently want to. Section 230 is just a way to shortcut litigation, the First Amendment is ultimately the protector of YouTube, and will remain so as long as the United States remains a country.

Repealing 230 would just trigger a new set of lawsuits, one of which would end up in front of the Supreme Court, who would then rule it as unconstitutional to force YouTube to publish content it doesn't want to, and we'll be right back where we started, just now with precedent in a Supreme Court case.

https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/05/section-230-as-first-am...

https://www.lawfareblog.com/wall-street-journal-misreads-sec...

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online/vol95/iss1/3/

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/section-230-critics-are-...

You are tilting at a windmill, friend.

[matthewmarkus]

I don't want to compel speech. I want to reattach a cost or liability to YouTube that was removed via state power.

Remember, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. "held that Prodigy was liable as the publisher of the content created by its users because it exercised editorial control over the messages on their bulletin boards in three ways: 1) by posting Content Guidelines for users, 2) by enforcing those guidelines with 'Board Leaders', and 3) by utilizing screening software designed to remove offensive language."

The State removed the above liability via Section 230, which paved the way for YouTube to become the monolith it is today. Reattaching liability to YouTube would force it to choose between an editorial model (Prodigy) or a platform model (CompuServe). It would not get the luxury of the editorial model without paying the corresponding costs of that model. In other words, it would put YouTube on the same playing field as the Washington Post and other traditional news sources.

[TameAntelope]

That doesn't matter, because The First Amendment still prevents the US government from stopping YouTube from existing as a platform for content it does not produce. It's a simple concept of "who did this?" and if it's not YouTube, then it's not liable.

I notice you ignored completely the articles I linked, and didn't even bother to address the myriad arguments put forward by legal experts on this issue. I assume that's because you have no legal standing whatsoever, and would prefer to just say, "This is what I want and I don't care if the country has to cease to exist first."

Additionally, I find it highly hypocritical that you post such an opinion on a platform that would be shut down, were you to magically get your way. When you have to express your opinion in a way that wouldn't be allowed if your opinion were shared, you might want to rethink your position. It makes your position look wholly unconsidered, which it apparently is.

[matthewmarkus]

I can address your articles, but they're at odds with one another. More specifically, the Harvard one claims CDA 230 is superfluous, while the Notre Dame one argues it is essential (to the internet as currently structured). I would say the Notre Dame one is correct.

The big flaw is revealed in the Lawfare blog:

"[CDA 230] merely ensures that courts will quickly dismiss lawsuits that would have been dismissed anyway on First Amendment grounds—but with far less hassle, stress and expense. At the scale of the billions of pieces of content posted by users every day, that liability shield is essential to ensure that website owners aren’t forced to abandon their right to moderate content by a tsunami of meritless but costly litigation."

The principle here isn't whether all the cases have merit or not; it is that every individual gets their day in court. That is, it is up to the courts to decide the merit of a case based on fact, which, of course, is case-dependent [1].

Denying individuals access to the courts makes them bear a cost. That cost should, in truth, be borne by Big Tech and subtracted from its profits.

As for Hacker News, it might not survive in its present form should CDA 230 be repealed. That's OK, though. Perhaps it would become PG's blog, and I would have to start my own blog to comment on matters of the day. That's entirely acceptable, and I don't find it hypocritical.

[1] https://www.rcfp.org/supreme-court-will-not-hear-letter-edit...

[TameAntelope]

The citations all agree that the 1st Amendment covers the part of Section 230 that you want to repeal. They disagree on the extent and impact, but they all fundamentally agree that Section 230 plays a role as a shortcut through litigation. You haven't addressed any of that, because it completely defeats your argument.

There would be one case, it would go to the Supreme Court, and would reinforce the key components of Section 230. YouTube, as a concept, will never go away, no matter what you want, because the 1st Amendment exists. Every individual would not get their day in court, as a precedent would be set and future lawsuits would be thrown out quickly, just as they are today.

Honestly, this smacks of bitter childishness; you want to hurt Google and you think this is the best way to do it. It is not, because it would not. It hurts no one, and would be re-resolved within the very next Supreme Court session, so no more than ~6 months. This childishness is reinforced by your acceptance that the platform you're writing on would not exist. You may not see that as hypocritical, but I and nearly everyone else who reads this does. It, alone, weakens your argument substantially.

[matthewmarkus]

Please read your citation:

https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr_online/vol95/iss1/3/

Newspapers do not enjoy CDA 230 protection. They face actual liabilities and carry liability insurance, a cost. Without CDA 230, these liabilities will not disappear for Big Tech by one case going to the Supreme Court in 6 months. We've seen the opposite with the Supreme Court not hearing at least one letter-to-the-editor libel case for newspapers [1].

Finally, It is not guaranteed that Hacker News would cease to exist. It might need liability insurance or change in some other way. All I know is that things would be different and better.

[1] https://www.rcfp.org/supreme-court-will-not-hear-letter-edit...

[TameAntelope]

I did read my citation. Ice cream trucks also don't have CDA 230 protection. What's your point? YouTube and the NYT are fundamentally different businesses, pretending otherwise is a waste of time, and further indulging your "This windmill is a dragon!" delusion.

This is a temper tantrum, and will never pass legislative or judicial muster. Enjoy YouTube, because its kind of site is sticking around forever.

This reminds me of a temper tantrum someone else threw on Twitter, claiming to leave the platform for an "a censorship-resistant technology: RSS". Did HN suddenly become exclusively based on RSS? No? Interesting. It's almost as if this is a post-hoc argument concocted to try and justify a childish fit.

Edit: You also shared propaganda on your Twitter feed about Hunter Biden's laptop, so it's pretty clear where your allegiances lie. Yet again, another conservative cries foul when an institution doesn't support his ideas.

I'm done here, I only engage with adults, which you clearly are not.

[MisterBastahrd]

So effectively you just want people with money to have the ability to disseminate their speech, since they're the only ones who would be able to share their content via any of these platforms if Section 230 were repealed.

[matthewmarkus]

No.

There is a valley of nuance between Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. [1] and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. [2]. All of this nuance was being worked out in the courts via common law principles before Congress short-circuited the process with CDA 230, which turned out to be one of the things that helped facilitate the rise of the Big Tech oligopoly that Congress now decries.

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

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

[MisterBastahrd]

Yes.

There's no such thing as nuance when it comes to corporate liability via third party participation. Companies are going to do the thing which reduces the surface area for litigation as much as possible. Youtube would nuke political speech entirely so fast from anyone not paying them a fee to be broadcast that heads would spin.

[matthewmarkus]

Let's say I post the following on a forum:

"X is a rapist." (Where X is a private figure for simplification.)

The nuance is as follows:

A) Under Cubby without proactive moderation.

The website is not liable for the above speech. All the website needs to do is remove the offending speech once it is made aware of its defamatory nature, maybe via a court order.

B) Under Stratton with proactive moderation.

The website is making an effort to determine the truthfulness of content. As such, letting a defamatory post go through subjects the website to liability.

C) Under CDA 230.

As per YouTube, "Because we are not in a position to adjudicate the truthfulness of postings, we do not remove video postings due to allegations of defamation." [1]

Option C is the worst. It is akin to letting an oil company pick and choose which spills are worth cleaning up. Websites can remove things they think are defamatory to certain people and leave up other things that are defamatory to others with no repercussions.

Ideally, we would live in a world governed by A and B. In that world, sites could choose between moderation and no moderation and the corresponding legal and financial burdens. What we have right now is a mess that works to the advantage of Big Tech.

[1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6154230?hl=en&co=G...

[MisterBastahrd]

There's a zero percent chance that a company like Youtube would allow its content to go completely unmoderated. It has to moderate its content. It has advertisers who are associated with content and it has to keep on the right side of copyright law. Also, no website operator wants the hassle of dealing with court orders because posters are engaging in verbal slapfights online. Your proposal of A would have an EXTREME chilling effect on speech.

Because Youtube exists in the real world, and because earning money through ads is a hell of a lot better for business than trying to get people to pay for content, C is always the best option for them and for every other content provider AND virtually all small and independent content producers.

Otherwise, companies like Youtube would be forced to gate entrance to supplying content by charging hosting fees for content. You are seeing the tree and missing the rest of the forest.

[irl_chad]

The idea isn’t repealing 230 - it’s to recognise any platform that’s manually curating content as a publisher. Then if that publisher hosts illegal content, they’re liable, because if they can curate some of the content, they should be responsible for all of it.

Also political feasibility in the USA isn’t the end-all be-all. YouTube certainly wants to do business in other countries/regions - such as the EU. Google is a public company, and as such it’s executives have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. Right now, since other megacorps want Google to censor content so their ads don’t run alongside XYZ content that you don’t like, Google is following their fiduciary duties. But if a regulator steps in, it becomes a matter if “oh shit doing business in the EU is more important than doing business with cocacola”

[TameAntelope]

Curation is not, has not, and will never be, the bar for determining what is and isn't a platform or a publisher. Curation is an expression of free speech, which is different from the role a publisher plays in works it publishes.

Your entire argument hinges on people not realizing there's a specific legal definition of the word "publisher", which means that no matter what politicians you convince to do what you want, it will never function as expected in the judiciary.