News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown... by eli on Wednesday July 14, 2021 @04:17PM (#27837888)
This "platform vs publisher" thing is a myth based on a misunderstand of how Section 230 works. The law doesn't actually distinguish between the two.
Re:Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown... by pindab0ter on Wednesday July 14, 2021 @04:20PM (#27837919)
It’s an international issue that not only U.S. law applies to. And even if it did, it’s still worth discussing.
Re:Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown... by dane-pgp on Wednesday July 14, 2021 @06:58PM (#27839533)
Perhaps the most relevant distinction is between "moderation that the users have a choice about" versus "moderation that the users don't have a choice about".

If a site wants to hide all posts/videos that promote some unpopular political belief, or use offensive words, then implementing that censorship as the default user experience is perfectly acceptable, as long as users can choose to opt out of that censorship.

There might be multiple reasons why a given post/video could be censored, and perhaps there is a small burden on sites to tag every single reason rather than mark it for censorship at the first excuse, but I think that a lot of the tagging work could be made the responsibility of the user who uploaded it.

Such a system would hopefully make moot the slightly disingenuous argument that "If sites can't ban political opinions I don't like then they also won't be able to ban spam". Obviously sites would be allowed to put neutral resource limits on users, to prevent DoS attacks.

Re:Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown... by handrous on Wednesday July 14, 2021 @05:00PM (#27838383)
It distinguishes between something and a publisher, in that it says whatever-you-want-to-call-that-something can't be treated as the publisher (it uses that word) of information it's distributing.
Re:Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown... by eli on Wednesday July 14, 2021 @06:55PM (#27839510)
It distinguishes between the person who uploaded the video and YouTube hosting the video. How YouTube exerts editorial control to promote some videos or delete others is not relevant. This is a good rule. HN couldn’t possibly exist without it.

There’s been a lot of really bad information on 230 from people who ought to know better.

Re:Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown... by handrous on Thursday July 15, 2021 @10:21AM (#27845058)
I got mine from the text of the law. It does what you say, and also what I say. I definitely doesn't not distinguish between a publisher and a service provider (host, platform, whatever). It does so explicitly.
Re:Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown... by infamouscow on Wednesday July 14, 2021 @04:39PM (#27838138)
The law is written by people, so it frankly doesn't matter what it says currently because it can (and probably will) change.
Re:Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown... by eli on Wednesday July 14, 2021 @06:40PM (#27839376)
I mean, sure, but parent comment was implying platforms have special legal protections currently, which isn’t really the case.