Not true, someone running a small blog can read every single comment that gets submitted. Twitter can't.
>> The world you propose does not have functional real-time public communication, because nobody could risk the liability of allowing the posting of content they haven't checked yet
Not true, even pre-internet the world had functional real-time public communication. We called them telephones. You didn't get cut off if your politics didn't match the phone company's. And if you act as a platform like that on the internet, you could allow the posting of content you haven't checked yet.
Platform or publisher, pick one.
>> The world you propose is one in which nobody could take the risk of running a community online
Not true, there are print communities that publish users' content - people take that risk.
>> "publish" is a distortion promoted by people trying to use the repeal of Section 230 as a weapon
Dictionary definitions of publish: "to make generally known", "to disseminate to the public". No, "publish" is not a distortion, it's a dictionary definition, you just don't like the consequences of that definition.
>> "Without that distinction, the Internet cannot exist as a medium for any kind of user-generated content"
Not true, user generated content exists in print and it should be cheaper on the internet than in print. False claim.
>> A functional Internet
An internet where 3 weeks out from an election, the major providers of information ban information that hurts their political candidate is not a functional internet, it's an Orwellian dystopia.
No. Just no.
Telephone calls are private; not public. There are two parties. It's literally against the law for other parties to attempt to become privy to those communications under most circumstances (wiretapping).
Please explain how something like HN works on the telephone.
>Not true, user generated content exists in print and it should be cheaper on the internet than in print.
User generated content does indeed exist in print, where the cost of printing and shipping that content are incumbent on the party that wishes to make their opinion known. When unsolicited or tiresome, we refer to this as junk mail or chain-letters.
But they then have to choose between allowing every racial epithet, porn link and scam, and risking a lawsuit because a commenter says something that’s construed as defamatory.
> Not true, even pre-internet the world had functional real-time public communication. We called them telephones.
Telephones are not public communication.
> An internet where 3 weeks out from an election, the major providers of information ban information that hurts their political candidate is not a functional internet, it's an Orwellian dystopia.
It’s interesting to me that the same people who are up in arms about the response to the NY Post story — the veracity of which has been questioned by several prominent publications — had nothing to say when Twitter announced that they would suspend accounts of users wishing the President would die of COVID. If I had to label one of those an “Orwellian dystopia”, it would not be the suppression of pro–ruling party agitprop.
Yes, that's correct. They have to choose what content to allow. That's called being a publisher.
>> Telephones are not public communication
I'm guessing that you are too young to have heard of party lines.
But yes, telephones were public communication.
Wishing the president would die of COVID would obviously be allowed under a platform scenario, what law do you think it breaks where a content provider wouldn't publish a wish that the president of the US dies of a disease?
Also, I don't think you know what the term agitprop means.
If you're really advocating forcing individuals and small communities to choose between filtering spam and risking lawsuits, we'll have to agree to disagree. Hopefully the chilling effects that would have on speech are self-evident.
> I'm guessing that you are too young to have heard of party lines.
> But yes, telephones were public communication.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what party lines are… no they weren't. How would I listen to a conversation happening between two people outside of my local loop?
> Wishing the president would die of COVID would obviously be allowed under a platform scenario, what law do you think it breaks where a content provider wouldn't publish a wish that the president of the US dies of a disease?
This wasn't a hypothetical; it happened last week. Twitter announced it would suspend the accounts of people wishing the president would die, and the people who would go on to cry foul about the NY Post article were curiously quiet.
> Also, I don't think you know what the term agitprop means.
Yes I do.
Or it's a sign that Twitter and FB shouldn't be "major providers of information".
Yeah, it really does seem some times like what Section 230 abolitionists really want is better accomplished through antitrust law. Trying to use liability for unrelated torts as a lever to force sites not to moderate is a very indirect and messy way to get back at the major platforms while creating a lot of collateral damage for smaller sites.
On the other hand using communications regulation does sound kind of obvious when you use the telephone or previous net neutrality disputes as reference points. Although it is ironic that the current anti-NN FCC now wants to push for platform services in the name of neutrality.
Should conventional printing press owners be considered utilities because you might want to post a bunch of posters somewhere, and by refusing to print your posters they censor you?
The difference in the printing press analogy is that if a printing company won't print my poster, I can take it elsewhere.
You don't lose those for being too successful.
That isn't true for internet content providers due to section 230.
If internet publishers make active editorial decisions, they are also liable. Consider the new york times online.
I gave an example elsewhere that the owner of a physical bulletin board wouldn't be liable for posters on it, even if they occasionally came by and took down ones that they felt should be removed (for any reason).
Section 230 claims that internet sites are more like a physical bulletin board then a newspaper, in that they are remove-later, not review-first models. Aa such they deserve the same liability as physical remove-later systems: relatively few.
That's called false dichotomy.
> The ask of companies under section 230 is that they be allowed to publish
No. "publish" is a distortion promoted by people trying to use the repeal of Section 230 as a weapon. To the extent liability should exist for speech at all, companies should absolutely be liable for what they publish. They should not be liable for what their users publish. Without that distinction, the Internet cannot exist as a medium for any kind of user-generated content. Centralized services providing curated content would fare just fine, but anything that allows users to interact or contribute would die.
> The question is, what do we get back for allowing them that privilege?
A functional Internet. Websites that contains content supplied by others, that aren't "anything goes" cesspools. An Internet that helps people interact in a read-write manner, not just consume content in a read-only manner.