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.
@sashafox @DARSB1 @mmasnick that claim to innocence would not hold IMHO. Moreover, it would not be enough to succeed on a motion to dismiss.
The expensive part of suits/trials is in discovery, which is very early in the process. That is plenty of incentive to moderate even harder (or shut down platforms). Even N*zis after the first couple suits would keep their shit offline/dark to avoid issues.
230 lets a platform go "I have immunity due to S230, dismiss me out of this case as a matter of law" and out they go. No discovery necessary.
*falls to the ground laughing, tears streaming from his eyes*
The same people who think 20 billion children are abducted everyday...
The same people who think 100 million sex slaves are trucked into the subperb owl...
The same people who put their kids halloween candy under a microscope looking for the drugs...
Thinking isn't a noted skill in humanity right now.
Tech can fix it magically if we demand they do it, because tech is maaaagic and ChatGPT could detect all the isis content
That humans suck at critical thinking.
They believe the hype, ignore any flaws no matter how huge and flashing they are.
Like people who keep threatening Drag Queens for reading stories while ignoring the count of "pastors" arrested to molesting kids is over 70 since Nov, but not a single Drag Queens done anything like that.
People screech about 230 and have no idea what it is or actually does & demand it be ripped down to make tech responsible for the actions of others.
@That_AC @mmasnick Section 230 should be reformed or replaced, not simply deleted. These tech companies run roughshod over public discourse and people rarely bat an eye. They should be accountable for the material on their platforms, and they should be accountable for keeping their user base informed and safe in an ever-increasingly online world.
At least as far as I go, I agree that people fall victim to hype on this subject, but I do believe 230 should be replaced with something more radical.
"They should be accountable for the material on their platforms"
So if the NYT runs yet another Transphobic opinion piece & someone goes and murders a Transperson we should sue the NYT?
"run roughshod over public discourse"
When did the public build or take over these platforms?
They all have rules & some people whine that the rules are unfair but its their ball and they can take it away from you.
@zub @mmasnick
"they should be accountable for keeping their user base informed and safe in an ever-increasingly online world"
Why is it private corporations responsibility to solve societal problems?
If gov's can't do it, how in the fsck is a corporation supposed to do it?
230 at its heart stops the idiots who want to sue the deepest pockets rather than the actual bad actors.
Did ya hear about the lawsuit against Apple b/c they didn't stop a teen from texting & driving & killing people?
Parents/politicians are trying to hold corps to a higher standard for protecting children than they require from parents.
Corps did not hand these kids phones & net connections. They didn't have a duty to teach kids how to use the internet.
It isn't their job to raise the kids, but these attacks on 230 are based on people refusing to understand what it actually says & find a way to get a big payday even if it kills posting anything online.
@mmasnick I'm wondering what the hell a reform of Section 230 would actually look like...
Section 230 overturned would simply be a nightmare. It would give our opposition a whole new suite of tools to "enshitify" (as Cory Doctorow puts it) online content.
Companies afraid of being sued for the distribution of their content would end up producing generic, uninteresting media.
It would be a granular change to the way we do things online. It's pretty nightmarish to even think about.
@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).
@taoish @mmasnick so #google has to #moderate everybsingle video individually in person? Do you know or understand how much content is pisted every day? Have you ever heard of the trauma #facebook moderators endured?
How do you stop a person from being biased? Imagine anyone manually moderate this conversation?
gshevlin
Mike Masnick ✅
toxtethogrady
Nani
Dean Barnett
Sasha Fox
LenoxPlay
Lauren Weinstein
That Anonymous Coward
Kell 🦄
Patricia Lavatai
JohnW
Wes Morgan
Guy who's trying his best :(
Mark Saltveit
Stark