HN has competent moderators that do a reasonable job removing illegal or harmful content. (Hi dang <3)

Section 230 protects bad actors, not good ones. Platforms that invoke Section 230 as a defensive measure are generally either refusing to moderate, or entrusting moderation entirely to algorithms, claiming they're "too big" to moderate their content.

> Section 230 protects bad actors, not good ones

Section 230 is why you can comment here without dang having to approve every comment you make first. It's why Facebook and Twitter and Reddit and HN can exist. It protects all actors.

This is completely untrue. Legal cases already have the concept of intent and liability. Section 230 provides blanket immunity for abuses that would otherwise be clearly defined as criminally negligent or willful behavior.

For example, without Section 230, one could define dang removing a harmful post shortly after it was flagged (usually within hours, I imagine) as best effort for a two-man moderation team, and find that PornHub, one of the most valuable web properties in the world with a significant amount of manpower, taking several weeks to take down a child porn video criminally negligent, and holding the company responsible. (Arguably, SESTA-FOSTA already enables the latter, as Section 230 no longer applies to sexual exploitation of children.)

Why not? Make them all responsible for curating the content they provide. Yes, that sounds fine.

Maybe I'm naive to the law you mention. What law applies here that protects HN and Pornhub?

> Why not? Make them all responsible for curating the content they provide. Yes, that sounds fine.

If that were the case, you'd have to wait for a moderator to approve this post. This site probably just wouldn't exist, because it would be far too hard for the moderators to do that.

> Maybe I'm naive to the law you mention. What law applies here that protects HN and Pornhub?

DMCA Safe Harbor and Section 230.

Thank you. I'm in the UK, I'll have to find out if we have similar rules here but broadly speaking my initial reaction is that this legislation is a bad thing and platforms should all be considered publishers and required to moderate the content they make available.

In the UK you guys have very interesting laws around this stuff. Your "tabloid culture" as it is exists primarily because of the protections your publishers get, but at the same time, people in the UK have much greater recourse against such things if they choose to invoke it.

Classic example, in the UK you can have bad feedback about you removed from eBay because your laws about libel and slander are so favorable to the target of those attacks, to the point where even truthful information may not be allowed.

In most of the world people have no problem with holding the site responsible for hosting images of child sexual abuse, even if those images were posted by users.

And in most of the world, criticizing a leader may have criminal offenses associated.

There's a reason the US is unique and that most of these companies are founded there.

> There's a reason the US is unique and that most of these companies are founded there.

The fact that businesses tend to be founded in the country with the least regulation and protection for consumers and public interest is probably not something we should really be proud of. It's kinda the worst part of unchecked capitalism.

Arizona proudly bragged about being the least hindrance to self-driving car testing in their state. Which is why businesses moved their self-driving operations there, an honor they can brag about. And now they also get the dubious honor of being the first to have a resident murdered by a corporation's self-driving car program.