News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 of the CDA. Parent comment

Re:You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Sect... by leereeves on Saturday January 09, 2021 @11:24AM (#25701643)
I understand the nuance you describe, but the situation I described is, at times, a problem with Section 230. For example:

> When a US Army reservist found herself at the center of a conspiracy about the coronavirus earlier this year, her life was upended.

> Hoax peddlers on the internet falsely claimed that Maatje Benassi was somehow the world's COVID-19 patient zero. Over time, conspiracy theorists posted at least 70 videos across multiple YouTube channels claiming that Benassi had brought the virus into the world. Along with those videos came death threats, which Benassi and her husband, Matt, took seriously.

> But at first, the couple did not know how to respond. Trolls hiding behind aliases on the internet were almost impossible to find, and the Benassis could not sue YouTube for allowing the content to be posted because of a now-controversial law known as Section 230.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/section-230-60-minutes-2021-01-...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Sect... by ghaff on Saturday January 09, 2021 @11:41AM (#25701825)
But absent Section 230, YouTube would presumably be in a position where it couldn't take down any content that wasn't actually illegal in some way.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Sect... by tonyztan on Saturday January 09, 2021 @11:52AM (#25701949)
My understanding is that you would sue the person who originally posted the content. You can sue "John Doe" and subpoena the social media companies and internet service providers for information to identify the poster.

https://revisionlegal.com/internet-law/defamation-attorney/i...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Sect... by edoceo on Saturday January 09, 2021 @12:13PM (#25702155)
Seems reasonable, just costs a lot of money. The cost of harassment should out-weigh the cost of protection here tho.

A) post video to YouTube for $0

b) contact lawyer to subpoena YT and then sue a jerk? $50,000

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Sect... by lostcolony on Saturday January 09, 2021 @02:21PM (#25703616)
Which the removal or not of Section 230 doesn't change. No matter what the law says, no matter what culpability exists, if you can't afford a lawyer, you're not getting anything. An issue with the law in the US, but hardly relevant to the issue at hand.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Sect... by leereeves on Sunday January 10, 2021 @02:36AM (#25711972)
But YouTube has deep pockets, so if you could sue YouTube, lawyers would work on contingency. What lawyer would take a John Doe case on contingency?

Worse, what if the defamer is able to hide their identity or from a jursdiction that doesn't care about an order from US courts? In that case, even paying for a lawyer won't help.

[ Parent | on HN ]