anonHacker2

Subparagraph (c)1(B) says that the only safe harbor for removing content is (c)(2). (c)(2)(A) restricts the criteria that can be used to remove content to the following: "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, promoting terrorism or violent extremism, harassing, promoting self-harm, or unlawful".

Furthermore, section (c)(1)(C) implies that removing ANY content by a user could make the forum liable for ALL OTHER content posted by that user, unless there is "good faith", but "good faith" is defined in section (g)(5)(A) to require all moderation criteria to be defined with "particularity".

Most open-ended subjective moderation criteria (such as used on Hacker News e.g. "Be kind. Don't be snarky") could be construed to lack "particularity" and is often about things not on the list in (c)(2)(A).

> Replace Vague Terminology in (c)(2). First, the Department supports replacing the vague catch-all "otherwise objectionable" language...

This disallows the common practice of open-ended moderation criteria such as "Be kind. Don't be snarky". Proposed section (c)(1)(b) removes the safe harbor except for moderation criteria on the list in proposed (c)(2)(a), which is: "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, promoting terrorism or violent extremism, harassing, promoting self-harm, or unlawful"

> Provide Definition of Good Faith. Second, the Department proposes adding a statutory definition of "good faith" which would limit immunity for content moderation decisions to those done in accordance with plain and particular terms of service and accompanied by a reasonable explanation...

Open-ended moderation criteria such as "Be kind. Don't be snarky" are at risk of not being judged "particular" enough, which is a requirement of proposed section (g)(5)(a), meaning that sites with open-ended criteria could be judged as "not in good faith" according to this definition, and lose their safe harbor.

Something like this will probably pass eventually because there is bipartisan support. Biden said in January that he thinks that Section 230 should be "revoked... immediately.”

Why do you say "clearly you can moderate based on your ToS"? I don't see anything here would permit the ToS to have moderation criteria such as "off-topic" while retaining the safe harbor. Section c1b is what leads to the conclusion that only the criteria in c2a are allowed, and section c1b doesn't mention "good faith" at all. Furthermore, for many sites such as Hacker News which define their topical focus broadly, "off-topic" could be judged to lack the "particularity" necessary to qualify as good-faith moderation criteria under section g5A.

Section (g)(3) says that "Being responsible in whole or in part for the creation or development of information includes, but is not limited to, instances in which a person or entity... comments upon ... or affirmatively and substantively contributes to, modifies, or alters information provided by another person". This implies that one editor of a wiki could be held responsible for not noticing and removing illegal content posted by another user while they edit a page.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download

Section (d)(2)(B) makes it illegal NOT to "expeditiously" remove illegal content once a provider has "actual notice" of illegality. If someone has a blog that they don't really maintain, someone else posts an illegal comment, a third person flags the illegal comment, and the blog owner doesn't get around to moderating their blog for a few months, do they go to jail?

That same section would make it difficult for web hosting providers and DNS providers not to take down other people's websites immediately if they receive any complaint about any illegal comment on those websites (they already do this sometimes, but this would make the problem worse). This would make it easy for trolls to take down small forums or blogs without the means to employ a 24/7 moderation team; just post something illegal then immediately complain about your own comment to the DNS provider before a moderator even has a chance to see it. The only solution allowed by this law would be for small forums to pre-moderate all content.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download

This law would make it illegal to host discussion forums such as Hacker News.

Subparagraph (c)1(B) says that the only safe harbor for removing content is (c)(2). (c)(2)(A) restricts the criteria that can be used to remove content to the following: "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, promoting terrorism or violent extremism, harassing, promoting self-harm, or unlawful".

The current Hacker News Guidelines contain stuff like "Be kind. Don't be snarky". These are broader than the text in (c)(2)(A). Therefore the safe harbor may not apply.

Worse, section (c)(1)(C) implies that removing ANY content by a user could make the forum liable for ALL OTHER content posted by that user, unless there is "good faith", but "good faith" is defined in section (g)(5)(A) to require all moderation criteria to be defined with "particularity". "Be kind. Don't be snarky" could be construed to lack "particularity".

The only alternative provided by this law would be to only remove content according to extremely legalistic moderation criteria. In my personal experience, all high-quality open forums require moderation with a degree of subjectivity with open-ended criteria similar to our Hacker News Guidelines. Given the legal risks of having to go to trial to argue about whether you are a "publisher" of other people's forum comments, it would be foolish for anyone to continue to employ open-ended moderation under this law.