[hackinthebochs]

> The point is starting with a list of carve-outs to any framework is an early sign it's fucked.

While I think this is a fair point in general, in specific cases it can be legitimate. We should not be powerless to legislate unless we're able to articulate some ideal discriminator that picks out only the intended target and nothing else. The world is almost never that tidy. We can probably agree in broad strokes what spam is, even if we can't articulate a sufficient decision criteria to identify it with 100% accuracy. We can also agree that one man's passion project shouldn't be powerless to ensure his forum remains on-topic. We can also agree that mega communications platforms have become so engrained into modern society that being censored or removed from them can have outsized effects on one's ability to effectively engage with society (e.g. losing access to your email, kicked off payment platforms).

There are a lot of grey areas in between, and identifying carveouts are one way to handle the messiness while still working towards the overarching goals. It's not perfect, but doing nothing in this case is worse in the sense of how far we are from our ideals.

[JumpCrisscross]

> in specific cases it can be legitimate. We should not be powerless to legislate unless we're able to articulate some ideal discriminator that picks out only the intended target and nothing else

Sure, but there should be a guiding principle. The point isn't we're powerless to act. It's that we should act thoughtfuly. Defaulting to carve-outs indicates the idea is inchoate.

Even in this thread, we've expanded from major social media platforms to e-mail providers and payment platforms. We're still brainstorming the general scope of the idea.

[hackinthebochs]

That the problem is big and requires care doesn't strike me as a substantive objection to the effort of addressing it using the tools that we have (legislation, however imperfect).

[JumpCrisscross]

> That the problem is big and requires care doesn't strike me as a substantive objection to the effort of addressing it using the tools that we have (legislation, however imperfect)

Again, not disagreeing. Just saying the solution as presented is obviously flawed. And I haven't seen a solution whose proponents don't similarly throw their hands up with generalities the moment it's poked.

[hackinthebochs]

"Throw my hands up" doesn't seem like a fair characterization. I wasn't offering legislation, I was offering a framework within which the details can be fleshed out that perhaps would lead to practical legislation (I mean, this is an HN comment after all, there's only so much you can reasonably expect). You seemed to disagree with the effort entirely, but your critique merely points to difficulties inherent in legislating nebulous phenomena. I certainly don't disagree, but I fail to see why that should short-circuit the effort. If that wasn't your intention, then perhaps we don't disagree much at all.

[JumpCrisscross]

Fair enough.

> was offering a framework within which the details can be fleshed out

So the framework is revoking § 230 for large websites that moderate user content. Except providing a safe harbor for removing illegal stuff. Also off topic. Presumably also spam.

What does that actually do except buy every lawyer a ranch? We haven’t actually drawn the line between censorship and moderation. And I’m arguing we can’t; there isn’t one. Where we draw the line we do so by identity; who is speaking or doing the moderating/censorship.

The act of censorship or moderation is the expression of an opinion. I haven’t seen a way to remove one without the other; that’s the error drawing up a list of examples doesn’t solve. There is always another example, and at that point, we aren’t drawing a line anymore, we’re back to putting content in a good and bad bin, just a little more centralised.

[hackinthebochs]

>What does that actually do except buy every lawyer a ranch? We haven’t actually drawn the line between censorship and moderation. And I’m arguing we can’t; there isn’t one. Where we draw the line we do so by identity; who is speaking or doing the moderating/censorship.

In broad strokes the line is simple: moderation is ensuring content stays on topic, censorship is limiting the topic. In practice it gets thorny. But we don't need to solve the concept in its full generality. This would only apply to sites that reach the size such that "public square" is a reasonable description of their social relevance.

The problem is these sites want to be the destination for communication, while also shaping that communication according to some narrow political aims. Also throw in maximizing engagement. These constraints should be seen as inherently contradictory. If you want to be the de facto public square, you should not be limiting topics among interested parties. I'll leave the specific verbiage to the lawyers, but the target is clear enough: people interested in engaging on some topic (barring illegality) should not be prevented by the site in engaging on that topic. I see nothing inherently contradictory or impossible about any of this.

[salawat]

Well with that sort of thinking, why not sit back while I kill this mosquito with a nuclear weapon?

There must always be a floor of reasonability and articulability before legislation is the answer. Especially where Federal legislation is concerned.