230 is specifically about giving protection to sites so they can moderate their content without being legally responsible for every thing users post.
It’s an update to older law that was written pre-internet for older style publishers (where they had more editorial control over what was published because the content wasn’t user generated).
It doesn’t have to do with recommendation algorithms.
Killing 230 would force YouTube to have zero content moderation beyond removing illegal content. It would be a bad outcome (which is why 230 was created).
Specifically, common law defamation. The two cases that the authors of Section 230 principally had in mind were Cubby v. CompuServe[1] and Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy[2].
> It doesn’t have to do with recommendation algorithms.
It theoretically could. Section 230 basically immunizes websites from defamation suits. The question in the above two cases was the degree of editorial control that CompuServe and Prodigy exercised. If you exercise insufficient editorial control, then you're not liable for defamatory statements made by users of your platform; you're just a passive entity, no more liable for libel than the telephone company is for slander. If you exercise sufficient editorial control, then you're directly liable for any defamatory statements as if you made them yourself in the first instance, much like a newspaper is liable.
There's no hard-and-fast rule for what constitutes sufficient editorial control, especially as it regards online interactive services. Section 230 stopped the evolution of the caselaw in its tracks. If the bar is relatively low, then some automated recommendation systems conceivably could trigger liability, presumably based on how sophisticated they are. I mean, that is the impetus for removing Section 230 protections afterall--recommendation algorithms that seemingly popularize "fake news", some of which is defamatory in nature. The selection of which user posts to popularize, and the manner in which they're presented, could constitute editorial control the same way a newspaper selects and frames statements taken or revealed by journalists. In fact, it might be worse for some websites--journalists and editors can interject weasel wording[3] to avoid liability, but algorithmic systems aren't that smart. And because defamation is a common law claim, the rules are likely to vary state by state.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
[3] Or another way to put it: reasonable qualifiers and narrative structure that make it clear the publisher isn't affirming the truth of the matter asserted.
That actually sounds much better than arbitrary moderation.
The pre-moderated Internet was a small group of enthusiasts, and even then there was moderation (e.g. Prodigy). You cannot compare now versus 80s/early 90s to suggest in good faith that an Internet that's barely even 0.1% of what it is now would illuminate what it's like without 230.
If people hold a conspiracy theory gathering in a bar without causing disturbance, should the patron be judged for the behaviour of his guests ? If you do believe so, I really do not want to live in your world.
An argument could be made for allowing patron to deny service to the guests if he so desire, in which case, guests shall be discriminated for any particular reason, and the patron shall not have to justify himself for such or such decision. Unfortunately, the law says that "some class" of citizens are protected from discrimination (congratulations if they belong to multiple class!) while a lower classes of citizen have to be discriminated against (talk about equality !). I do not agree with this principle. Either any or no discrimination is acceptable, no in-between.
I frankly think the core problem in a lot of these discussions is "a lack of vision" with respect to what all the changes would be to get a website compatible with a complete lack of moderation. Like, look at comments on videos: I think in practice almost no videos would have comments (and I think this is great, as YouTube comments are well known to be extremely low quality, despite supposedly having moderation: we finally got to the point on the Internet where we realized that even comments on news sites are generally harmful, and have given people a weird expectation of a "right to be heard" as opposed to merely "a right to free speech").
The assumption--which makes no sense to me--is always "without moderation everything you see would be a cesspool", when I will argue that it should be obvious that that won't happen, because you will have to rethink how comments work entirely if they are unmoderated, and I think the result of this is that comments will just get turned off. When you follow some random channel, you will see videos from that channel and videos shared by that channel (the content of both of which the people who make that channel will be liable for, but not YouTube, as they exercised editorial control but YouTube did not) and that's it: you won't see videos from other channels (as YouTube won't take that liability unless they carefully hand-curate their selections, which maybe some website would but Google would never bother with ;P) and you won't see comments on any videos unless someone agreed to pre-moderate them (and accept liability for them).
Again: you won't see YouTube showing you random videos unmoderated, as that isn't a useful platform (ignore "horrible" for a moment: this would be 99% spam... even 4chan doesn't work once you truly reject Section 230; and again: maybe that isn't a bad thing ;P), and you won't see unmoderated horrible comments for the same reason: the feature set of the Internet changes once you change this law; and maybe you really really like those features and refuse to give them up... but trying to make arguments about what the content on the Internet would look like without first contemplating how the feature set changes is a nonsensical prediction and I think does a disservice to these discussions and forms a kind of strawman for the position against Section 230.
1. No moderation and continuing to allow user created content.
2. Removal of all user created content (with some narrow exceptions like YouTube video channels).
I don’t think either of these is a better outcome.
Along the way we’d lose sites like HN and any others that do the best they can to moderate a varied user base.
If you're getting terrible content, I have to think you're the one to blame. You have the like and subscribe buttons, you can train the system. I did.
Thumbs-up stuff you want to see more of, ignore or thumbs-down stuff you want to see less of. Subscribe to channels that seem to have a lot of stuff you like. It seems straightforward?
I understand you can watch only one type of video, but, from what I,'ve seen, as soon as you watch/click on 1 political video, you get bombarded by it. Also sharing ip with other people seem to affect what you're being shown. I'm surprised that hn seems to think it has that much control over the recommendation algorithm.
It’s a bit like blaming the heroin addict who is offered it everywhere they go. Don’t blame the user when this is wide spread.
[1] https://mashable.com/article/youtube-conspiracy-theory-recom...
That is section 230 verbatim.
It says a service provider should not be regarded as a publisher of user submitted content, wherein the user submitting said content thus accepts the role of publishers. I disagree and believe the service provider to be the publisher no differently than a magazine showing advertising the magazine did not themselves create. It’s time the laws reflect the reality of the content in question.
Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
This is section 230 verbatim. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
230 was created to allow them to moderate their platforms. The context in my post (and the history described in that stratechery link) are critical to fully understand the issue.
What you’re suggesting would lead to the opposite of what you want - it would force them to not moderate at all.
Facebook being legally responsible for the random musings of two billion Facebook users and a magazine being responsible for the ads it runs are not equivalent.
I am completely fine with that since content moderation is virtually nonexistent online.
> being legally liable for all user content is not survivable
That is the same argument for opposing slavery. Its a meritless argument.
At any rate the section is most certainly a legal shield both in practice and intent contrary to your claim:
> this section also protects ISPs from liability for restricting access to certain material or giving others the technical means to restrict access to that material
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act
As another example one of my coworkers claims residence in California where he owns an agricultural services business. He supplies labor to orchards to pick nuts and fruit. It costs more for the farms to hire him than for them to hire and manage the field labor directly. The only reason they use him is to shield themselves from liabilities associated with labor law. He is their legal shield in the capacity of a distributor and retains liabilities associated with such.
This seems to contradict everything I’ve read, including the case law history, do you have something you’re basing this on beyond personal opinion? Given that you left out the relevant Good Samaritan portion in your previous comment, it feels like you’re arguing from a position of motivated reasoning. I think you’re wrong on this issue, but I’m happy to be shown otherwise.
> “I am completely fine with that since content moderation is virtually nonexistent online.”
This just isn’t true: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/men-are-scum-inside-...
As far as meritless argument, sites that allow user content could not exist if they were responsible for all of it. This is no way comparable to the moral hazard of slavery (which should not exist) so there’s no conflict.
I’m confused by your last point, I’m arguing that it is a legal shield. It’s just that the shield enables them to moderate.
My last point is that the producer of physical goods does not need a legal shield, because they separate distribution from availability. A web server cannot separate distribution from availability and thus would retain liability for content regardless of its reclassification.
Here it is a private individual saying some people on the platform are using his likeness to scam people out of money.
Is what is happening with YouTube allowing these videos to stay up illegal? I am not a lawyer, but I am curious to know.
For an even more heinous example see the Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory.
It isn't a legal shield any more than you not being prosecutable for the death of Abraham Lincoln is - because it is the completely wrong person to try to prosecute!
This point is often confused and misunderstood. People think without 230 owners would be liable, but they’d only be liable if they moderated (so they wouldn’t). Without 230 owners would not moderate which would be worse for everyone.
https://stratechery.com/2019/a-framework-for-moderation/
> “ In other words, the act of moderating any of the user-generated content on its forums made Prodigy liable for all of the user-generated content on its forums — in this case to the tune of $200 million. This left services that hosted user-generated content with only one option: zero moderation. That was the only way to be classified as a distributor with the associated shield from liability, and not as a publisher.”
> “The point of Section 230, then, was to make moderation legally viable; this came via the “Good Samaritan” provision”
> “In short, Section 230 doesn’t shield platforms from the responsibility to moderate; it in fact makes moderation possible in the first place. Nor does Section 230 require neutrality: the entire reason it exists was because true neutrality — that is, zero moderation beyond what is illegal — was undesirable to Congress.”