[Aurornis]

Still wild to me that people advocate for making platforms responsible for user-submitted content on a website that consists entirely of user-submitted content.

Everyone always has some excuse for why they believe their favorite websites and platforms wouldn’t be impacted, but generally these problems would result in a situation where only the big platforms like Facebook could afford to comply and the platforms like Hacker News or all of your favorite forums and chat hangouts would be forced to close because they can’t afford to comply with laws making them liable for user generated content.

Repealing 230 would only consolidate power among the big social sites who can afford to comply and lobby.

[bsdetector]

Without section 230 you'd get a few large publishing outlets moderating all content and you'd also get distributed media where the aggregation is done by each individual.

There just wouldn't be that middle area where social media sites get to choose what you are allowed to say or read just because they have a monopoly on the data.

For instance, you could run your own individual Hacker News site that collects the data and creates the same thing you see today - except you could choose to only view posts and comments by sources verified as humans. Or you could turn on 'show dead' on a grander scale - your choice.

Section 230 isn't required for social media.

[Aurornis]

> For instance, you could run your own individual Hacker News site

It’s baffling how many people think repealing Section 230 would make it easier for small people to host user-submitted content.

It would do the inverse: It would make hosting user submitted content legally untenable for all but the biggest players with the biggest ad budgets to comply with the laws.

[bsdetector]

You host your own content, and non-230 telecom rules protect a pure cache so bandwidth and always-on internet needn't be an issue.

It shouldn't be baffling to you; it's not even a hard problem to solve, and the only reason why things like ActivityPub aren't done more today is because of 230. A monopoly on data gives centralized social media an unfair advantage that's only possible through legal immunity.

[Aurornis]

> You host your own content, and non-230 telecom rules protect a pure cache so bandwidth and always-on internet needn't be an issue.

You can already host your own content. Bandwidth is a non-issue right now.

You’re ignoring, or don’t understand, that the benefit of social media is sharing and distribution. The repeal-230 people always have some fanciful ideas about an alternative system appearing to fill the void and that it will be better for reasons, but the bottom line is that without some protection for services to share content it’s going to be negligible exposure.

Only the few with access and connections to the well-connected large media outlets would have distribution. It would be a total self-own for small people who want to share something.

[bsdetector]

Some people run their own Mastodon servers, where they share and participate in social media, so there's a proof by example that your fears are unfounded.

[adastra22]

They would be legally responsible for anything federated into their feed, anything anyone who logs in via their server posts, etc.

[xphos]

I think the idea that sites have no liability for customly built content designed to capture your attention is kind of wild. It would be one thing if it was a basic or public thumbs up popularity thing based on the groups you join or were apart of. Or a time chronological ordering of things. But its more than that. Its a big math equation that looks at everything you have ever done sells that data and than goes and uses it also to serve you custom ads and contents that maximally steal and maintain attention.

Following you final state and some of the other sub threads, I think removing section 230 hurts larger sites more than smaller ones but also I think its a silly point. If the opposite was true that it benefits small sites more why does 90% of internet traffic go yo just the top 1000 sites? Its because there is no liability and cost to operate in ways that hurt people and the world. A reduced order of the algorithms say chronological ordering or basic vote systems perhaps deserve section 230 protection but the friction roster of videos custom order to capture attention is a type of content production and perhaps needs regulations

[benoau]

> Still wild to me that people advocate for making platforms responsible for user-submitted content on a website that consists entirely of user-submitted content.

In both Meta and Google's case, it has been found that it doesn't "consist entirely of user-submitted content", there is also "their software" promoting and recommending content and allowing to pay for higher visibility, and they should certainly be liable for at least this facet of what they do (and were both recently found to have intentionally designed it to be "harmful").

There is also the open question of whether the big tech companies are doing enough to police their platforms, which are all awash with scams, counterfeits and more. Their safeguards for "user-generated content" (somehow including physical goods on Amazon and apps for Android and iPhone) are another facet they should be liable for if it is insufficient.

[CTDOCodebases]

The sites have user submitted content but the sites decide what content they show.

In legacy media the platform is responsible for the content they present you. On new media platforms they are pushing out foreign propaganda and getting financially rewarded for it.

Repeal 230 and put all the controls of recommender system into the hands of the user. Present information chronologically by default.

[vetrom]

The core sticking point is, I think, is that Section 230 was envisioned as a 'common carrier' exception. Common carriers do not apply editorial control to the content they transmit.

In the modern landscape, where practically every mainstream (and most of the non mainstream even) platform has extensive policies and applies them in a manner that's equivalent to editorial control, they are no longer a common carrier, they are a publisher.

Should that exemption and safe harbor be expanded to all publishers? If no, do you really want the Government picking and choosing favorites? Either way you choose, I believe there will be many first and further order implications.

You can either get Congress to modify the definition, or you could try to get a case through the courts to clarify its interpretation. As one of those indirect implications, I am actually not sure which one would be more of a footgun.

[hn_acker]

> The core sticking point is, I think, is that Section 230 was envisioned as a 'common carrier' exception. Common carriers do not apply editorial control to the content they transmit.

No, the writers of Section 230 (Ron Wyden and Chris Cox) envisioned the opposite, that websites hosting user-generated content would not be common carriers, would be free to develop new ways to moderate and curate content as they wished, and could not be punished for applying their own viewpoints to their moderation.

From Wyden's and Cox's amicus brief in Gonzalez v. Google confirming that targeted recommendations are protected by Section 230 [1] (related summary at [2]):

> Section 230 does not permit the Court to treat YouTube’s recommendation of a video as a distinct piece of information that YouTube is “responsible” for “creat[ing],” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3).

[...]

> Section 230 protects targeted recommendations to the same extent that it protects other forms of content curation and presentation. Any other interpretation would subvert Section 230’s purpose of encouraging innovation in content moderation and presentation.

From Wyden's and Cox's reply comments to an FCC rulemaking process regarding whether the FCC has authority to interpret Section 230 (it does not) [3]:

> The first is that Section 230 does not require political neutrality. Claiming to “interpret” Section 230 to require political neutrality, or to condition its Good Samaritan protections on political neutrality, would erase the law we wrote and substitute a completely different one, with opposite effect. The second is that any governmental attempt to enforce political neutrality on websites would be hopelessly subjective, complicated, burdensome, and unworkable. The third is that any such legislation or regulation intended to override a website’s moderation decisions would amount to compelling speech, in violation of the First Amendment (regarding which, see section VIII below).

[...]

> The reason that Section 230 does not require political neutrality, and was never intended to do so, is that it would enforce homogeneity: every website would have the same “neutral” point of view. This is the opposite of true diversity.

The above quoted statements denying a requirement of political neutrality apply equally if you replace "political neutrality" with the more general "viewpoint neutrality".

[1] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/211333%20bsac%20W...

[2] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-a...

[3] https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/historical/2316/

[dijksterhuis]

> Still wild to me that people advocate for making platforms responsible for user-submitted content on a website that consists entirely of user-submitted content.

I would happily let HN go if it's death resulted in facebook and twitter dying along with it. I personally believe the benefits to wider society would outweigh me not being able to read some interesting articles and argue in comment threads.

> Repealing 230 would only consolidate power among the big social sites who can afford to comply and lobby.

Unfortunately, yeah. guess i'm gonna be stuck arguing in comment threads for a while longer then =(

[SoftTalker]

Oh I think sites would be greatly impacted. To the point where most/all user submitted content would need to be moderated. It would completely upend social media and make most comment-based forums impractical to operate at large scale. I think that would be a good thing. We'd be going back to something like the days of newspapers, where letters to the editor were all read and approved by the publisher before they were printed.

[Aurornis]

You want to go back to an era where only a select few large, powerful outlets could decide what gets published? You see what’s happening with news media and governments threatening news outlets and you want to consolidate to that?

The rest of us would have to beg for their permission to let our words be heard?

I don’t think you’ve thought this fantasy through.

[SoftTalker]

I didn't say anything about a few large, powerful outlets. I said outlets should at least share responsiblity for what they publish.

[Aurornis]

> I didn't say anything about a few large, powerful outlets.

Only the large powerful outlets will have the budgets and legal connections to host user submitted content.

[fc417fc802]

tl;dr I view Facebook's practices as a form of editorializing but not HN's

Setting aside the valid point about self hosting made by another commenter, I'll note that we don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Section 230 need not apply to outlets that make "editorial" decisions and can remain in place for places that operate in a largely neutral and transparent manner (for example HN as I understand it).

I see no reason not to hold a tabloid responsible for what it publishes and I further see no inherent reason that highly customized feeds utilizing black box recommendation algorithms designed to benefit the operating party shouldn't be viewed as a form of hands on content promotion (ie editorial in nature).

To me the current arrangement seems like laundering responsibility with "well the algorithm did that, not me" which (IMO) is about as valid as "we didn't violate any financial regulations because we did it all in crypto".

[potsandpans]

It's good intentions. Only instead of paving the way to hell, it will pave the way to techo fascist governments. Maybe that is hell. Depends on your income bracket.