Somewhat disappointed in the people who are so quick to say that we need to reform Section 230 because "big tech companies are bad," without considering whether or not it would even fix the problem. Too many of my mentions are people who seem to not care about the consequences (and whether or not such reforms would help fix any perceived problem). It's just "company bad, therefore, 230 must be bad."
Think through the details, people.
@zub yeah, so you're just confirming that you're exactly the kind of person i'm talking about. blowing stuff up without understanding how that does the exact opposite of what you want.
It would mean less accountability and more power to big companies.
You simply do not know what you're talking about.
@zub "take no responsibility at all"? Facebook employs over 20,000 content moderators, and keeps trying to adjust the algorithm to downgrade the garbage, because they know it drives people away long term.
I'm not saying they're good at it, because no one is good at it (mainly because people are messy an awful), but the idea that they "take no responsibility" is just obviously laughably false.
And getting rid of 230 would INCENTIVIZE "taking no responsibility."
@mmasnick and yet that garbage is what drives most of the traffic on their platforms and is a primary source of profit for them as a direct result.
Their moderators do their jobs but only to the extent that Facebook allows them to, and it’s clear the corporation caves easily to “but you’re censoring [insert political group here]’s beliefs!” and similar rhetoric. See Twitter preventing moderation actions on Libs of TikTok without explicit supervisor approval.
@zub again, that's wrong. you've been fed a myth. sites have learned that too much garbage drives away users and advertisers.
We can complain where they draw the line, but you claim they take no responsibility at all and that's false.
The nuances and tradeoffs are not what you make them out to be.
@mmasnick I feel that all one needs to do to see that I’m not wrong is to look at a place like the Daily Wire or Info Wars. These are outlets that *thrive* on hate-clicks and on creating negative perceptions of minorities and promoting conspiracy theories, and they have not been harmed at all by their hateful content.
One does not need to rely on advertisers to make money when you can rely on the grift perpetuated by a group of radicals feeding on anger.
@zub you've switched from social media to media publications. And info wars is bankrupt and facing billions in fines, so, you know...
But, if your complaint is that we shouldn't let "bad" media exist, well, the 1st Amendment is a problem for you.
@zub this is my area of expertise. yes, the 1st amendment only limits government's ability to abridge freedom of expression, but that includes that it cannot create laws that suppress bigotry. Private entities, of course, can (and many will!) refuse to host such speech, which is part of their own rights.
But to the extent you're suggesting laws can be used to suppress bigotry, you are wrong.
@mmasnick I hadn’t meant to imply that I feel the government can or should suppress bigotry; I am merely suggesting that the government *can* passively encourage better moderation practices in the Information Age.
Certain forms of hate speech, for example, are not protected under the first amendment. Such forms include speech that: incite crime, threaten serious bodily harm, or cause immediate breach of the peace; this kind of speech both can and should be actively suppressed in my opinion.
@zub the way the gov't encourages better moderation is... by removing liability for making a mistake. which... is 230.
1st amendment exceptions are pretty clearly enumerated, and narrowly tailored. your list is incorrect. hate speech is not an exception. "incitement to imminent violence" is, but that's not the same.
@mmasnick I’m not sure we will agree on the subject, but I respect your point of view.
I believe the best way to create a better internet is to force the powers that be into taking responsibility for the content they host, and the best way to do that I believe is to impose liability for the objectionable and hateful amongst that very content.
@zub thing is "objectionable" and "hateful" content is not illegal. So you can't impose liability for it.
And... to be honest, that's a good thing. Everywhere that has tried to do so finds that it's abused, usually by the powerful to oppress the marginalized. They will claim that protests and criticism are objectionable and hateful (see: laws that say it's hate speech to criticize police).
Mike Masnick ✅
Kell 🦄
Patricia Lavatai