
Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections - justindocanto
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-to-propose-limiting-internet-firms-protections-11592391602
======
throwawaygh
I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that Section 230 protections should come
with some sort of obligation to allow free speech.

However, the actual policy proposals for replacing Section 230 are all
outright dystopian. Josh Hawley, in particular, is _NOT_ a free speech
advocate. His problem with Facebook/Tiwtter is perceived liberal bias, and the
alternatives to Section 230 that he suggests are 100% about wrestling
editorial oversight away from one class (tech CEOs) and then giving it to
another (a politically-appointed board).

Does anyone have a good proposal for how to go about reforming Section 230 in
a way that's workable and values free speech?

~~~
jasode
_> Section 230 protections should come with some sort of obligation to allow
free speech. [...] Does anyone have a good proposal [...] and values free
speech?_

Nobody has a good proposal because every discussion about the idealism of _"
values free speech"_ is always hiding the true difficulty: nobody wants to be
forced to _pay_ for others' undesirable speech.

E.g. Youtube can't be a "free speech" platform because advertisers have free
will and can choose to not pay for it. (Previous comment about Adpocalypse:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23259087](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23259087))

Always mentally translate "create a website that allows free speech" into _"
create a website that forces others to always pay for undesirable speech they
don't agree with"_ \-- and you will see that's a virtually impossible dream to
accomplish. There is no broadcasting medium (including websites) in any
country that doesn't have interference and pressure to remove/ban content via
consumer boycotts, advertisers, subscribers, business judgement, or government
officials.

Websites have the hard reality of requiring cpu/disk/bandwidth and they all
cost _money_ and that's the lever used by others that keeps "absolute free
speech" from getting realistically implemented.

~~~
haberman
This is close, but misses the mark slightly I think. The cpu/disk/bandwidth to
store and serve text are so small as to be irrelevant. I don't think it's a
cost issue.

The issue is one of _association_. There are strong social forces that punish
association with any distasteful speech. The association taints everything
(and everyone) it touches, and the liability in the form of negative blowback
can grow far beyond whatever costs were involved in actually serving the
content.

Even if some set of individuals were willing to donate all the hosting costs
of the distasteful speech, there would be strong social pressure for hosting
platforms not to accept the money.

~~~
bilbo0s
> _The cpu /disk/bandwidth to store and serve text are so small as to be
> irrelevant._

Just wondering, in your view, if these costs are so "small", who pays them
when advertisers abandon the website? Where does the money come from to cover
these costs? (Small as they are.)

Full Disclosure: My own belief is that IRL these costs, especially for
something at the scale of YouTube, are not likely to be terribly "small" at
all. I seriously doubt most organizations could countenance such costs with no
return on that investment.

~~~
haberman
The revenue from advertisers is supporting both controversial and non-
controversial content.

If advertisers completely pull their ads off a website even though only 1%
(say) of the content they were sponsoring is actually controversial, then the
blowback has cost the platform 100x more than what they were paying to host
the controversial content.

I think hosting costs can be significant overall, yes. But I think the
_marginal_ hosting cost of allowing controversial content is not significant.

It's only a significant cost when it impacts the revenue stream for the bulk
of what the website is publishing.

~~~
bilbo0s
But if there is no way to remove content because of mandatory free speech,
then the controversial content goes to 99%. No advertiser will pay for ads
alongside a torrent of profanity and porn. It just won't happen. (Well, porn
sites might? But no one else.)

Not to mention the fact that the sites could not stop advertisers from posting
ads on their site in any case. (Since it would be illegal to remove content.
Free speech and all that.) So why would I pay that 8 figure yearly sum to you
that the big advertisers are paying today, when I can pay not even a million
to a spam farm to post my ads as standard comments that you are forbidden from
removing? And it's completely legal.

I just think you're being a tad idealist. Spam farms exist. Botnets exist.
Pedophiles, porn stars, klansmen, all these exist. This stuff would be the
majority of content, not 1% of content. Spam alone would overwhelm interesting
content, and that's before you even throw in the porn, pedophilia, and klan
rallies.

------
bcrosby95
Be careful of what you ask for.

Section 230 exists because the courts punished Prodigy because they tried to
moderate their forums but did it imperfectly, but didn't punish CompuServe
because they let anything go. The idea is to allow imperfect moderation in
addition to both zero and perfect moderation.

The internet without section 230 isn't a bastion of internet freedom. It's
4chan and 8chan. It's a shithole.

~~~
Consultant32452
I'm okay with imperfect moderation. What I'm not okay with is backdoor
untracked political contributions under the guise of imperfect moderation. It
feels, to me, that Twitter and Google have given Billions of dollars worth of
political censorship/promotion/search bias. Let's get the FEC involved so we
can measure and track this political spending.

~~~
thomaslord
I'm curious... What dollar value would you place on Twitter contribution to
the Trump campaign? They have long failed to enforce their terms of use
against Trump's account despite him posting tweets that violate them, despite
other accounts that posted the same text verbatim having the tweets removed
and/or being banned from the platform.

I can't think of any high-profile liberal politicians who have such a blatant
disregard for the rules of the platform, so that _must_ be what you're
referring to, right? Or is your contention that rules like "don't use our
platform call for violence" are themselves political censorship targeted at
conservatives?

~~~
Consultant32452
You might be interested in research by Robert Epstein which calculates how
Google search rankings impact votes. He measured how many votes this changed
and put some economic value on it.

Here's a quick interview between him and Larry King. His Congressional
testimony is also really great, but it's over an hour long. You can find it on
Youtube if you're interested.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS3uETvzZZ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS3uETvzZZ0)

To put it simply, Google decides who wins every close election. If that's the
future you want, where tech oligarchs and/or a rogue lower level employee
controls entire elections across the globe, then that's the world you have
today.

Trump's tweets are a red herring. I'm not a Trump supporter.

------
akersten
Can someone who supports "let's hold internet platforms responsible for what
their users do on their platform" explain how that's any different than "let's
hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?"

I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable
fantasies.

~~~
vnchr
Internet platforms maintain control over their system whereas gun
manufacturers give away control to gun buyers.

The gun manufacturer ceases to maintain control and cannot be assigned
responsibility after the sale of the good.

~~~
belltaco
So I guess the same logic applies to the phone companies for calls and texts,
since they maintain control over it?

~~~
gfxgirl
I don't know what the right answer is but as far as analogies go the phone
companies don't decide which calls you get and which of your incoming
calls/texts to make a priority.

Twitter and certainly Facebook do run algorithms that decide which of the 300
things the 1000 people you friended or follow should be displayed and in what
order so they get decide what to emphasize as important by deciding what you
see first and even what you see at all.

In order to be the same as the phone company they'd have to give you the
entire feed of every person you follow in chronological order, no filtering.

I suppose one solution for them. They could default to no filtering and let
users turn on filters. Then it would be the user's choosing the filters, not
them. I'm not sure what scrutiny the filters themselves would need.

A simple filter like "show nothing with the word 'poop' in it" would seem
safe. A complex filter like "let this ML algo decide for me" I have no idea.

------
save_ferris
In a nutshell, this would require congressional approval to pass. Both parties
have expressed desire to alter the current legal protections that internet
firms have, but it’s not clear if there will be a bipartisan consensus on what
this change will look like if/when formal bills are introduced.

------
joshuamorton
Perhaps the most important line from the article:

> The Justice Department proposal is a legislative plan that would have to be
> adopted by Congress.

~~~
timmytokyo
This is an important point. Given that Congress is divided between the two
parties, the chances of something like this becoming law are zero. So why is
the proposal being made? It's a presidential election year, and the president
is working the refs, trying to scare them away from anything that might make
it even a little bit harder for him to get his "message" out.

------
nojito
>The Justice Department also will seek to make clear that tech platforms don’t
have immunity in civil enforcement actions brought by the federal government,
and can’t use immunity as a defense against antitrust claims that they removed
content for anticompetitive reasons.

Oh boy...the costs of running Google, Twitter, Facebook and others... will
quintuple overnight when Congress passes this.

~~~
adventured
It's wonderful to see the price of censorship by colluding monopolies is going
to skyrocket.

I can't wait until the fines start raining down. They'll have earned every
cent of the financial damages. The arrogant, biased platforms picked a fight
they can't win with half the political power in the US.

This rapid, broad shift is why Larry and Sergey ran for the hills not long
ago, abandoning Alphabet as fast as possible; they saw what was coming
(including the anti-trust investigations). I bet they destroyed as much of
their internal communication history as possible as well (legally of course,
probably), so it can't be used against them or the company.

~~~
pavlov
It’s surreal that a popular Republican position now is: “We want the
government to impose giant fines and new regulations on the most successful
American businesses of the past decade, hopefully destroying them.”

Regardless of the merits of the idea, it’s an amazing paradigm shift for the
GOP.

~~~
jhawk28
I don't think that is the position. I think they are just tired of a perceived
bias against the right by left leaning aggregation organizations compounded
with the cancel culture.

~~~
charwalker
That's the thing, it's perceived and not real. Media outlets driving that
narrative are lying to their viewers for clicks. If someone refuses to drop
their bias in face of contrary evidence or that evidence isn't even presented
alongside the initial claim, they may be watching an entertainment channel,
not a news channel.

[https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/440703-evidence-
contr...](https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/440703-evidence-contradicts-
right-wing-narrative-of-tech-censorship-and-bias)

~~~
AuryGlenz
I can’t speak for Twitter and Facebook, but it’s absolutely real on Reddit.
All one needs to do is look at how they treated r/the_donald compared to
r/politics.

------
BelleOfTheBall
Ah, seeking to mess with Section 230 again, just like with the EARN It Act.
Any company that stays headquartered in the USA if this passes is just begging
for trouble.

~~~
seemslegit
Pray tell where should such a company go ?

~~~
Communitivity
Ireland looks good, at least on paper. I'm attached to the U.S., but if I was
looking at relocating to Ireland I'd want to talk to people I knew who are on
the ground there, or at least friends of friends who are. A puff piece, but
has some interesting tidbits:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/shourjyasanyal/2018/11/27/is-
ir...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/shourjyasanyal/2018/11/27/is-ireland-
really-a-startup-nation/#bb03eb445566)

~~~
seemslegit
And I suppose you have done research on the Irish legal system, its liability
protections for 3rd party content providers, its jurisprudence on hate speech,
defamation and libel ? (hint: it's part of the EU)

~~~
Communitivity
I have not, and never claimed I did. I said it looks good on paper. A number
of sources have said it is startup friendly.

If the EU's laws are so burdensome, why is there a thriving startup ecosystem
in the EU? I have read about EU's stances on hate speech, defamation, and
libel (though I wouldn't call that hobby reading research), and I am fine with
their stances.

I think we could use more hate speech protection, when I see reports that as
much as 60% of the tweets in the current U.S. political conversations are done
by biased bots.

And no, I am firmly against EARN IT and the other 230 attacks. We need
internet legislation that is thoughtful, created by technical SME staffers and
constitutional law SME staffers, not broad-brush legislation pandering to
votes, FUD, or special interests.

~~~
seemslegit
> If the EU's laws are so burdensome, why is there a thriving startup
> ecosystem in the EU? I have read about EU's stances on hate speech,
> defamation, and libel (though I wouldn't call that hobby reading research),
> and I am fine with their stances.

There is nothing particularly thriving about it. There are just a lot of them
because it costs almost nothing to incorporate a company and 'startup' sounds
cooler than a 'small consulting business' or a 'software house'.

Can you name many EU startups that IPOd or got acquired for an impressive
amount during the last decade or were even considered "unicorns" at any point
by anyone other than themselves ?

In any case, Section 230 isn't about startups per se but specifically about
3rd party content providers - know any such companies that are EU-based ?

> I think we could use more hate speech protection, when I see reports that as
> much as 60% of the tweets in the current U.S. political conversations are
> done by biased bots.

Have you considered the possibility of those reports being disseminated by
biased bots ?

> And no, I am firmly against EARN IT and the other 230 attacks. We need
> internet legislation that is thoughtful, created by technical SME staffers
> and constitutional law SME staffers, not broad-brush legislation pandering
> to votes, FUD, or special interests.

You sound confused. How do you expect those hate speech protections to
materialize if not by modifying or cancelling Section 230 ? I mean there's
always the option of cancelling the 1st amendment - no one seems to like that
pesky thing anyway today.

~~~
sobani
> Can you name many EU startups that IPOd or got acquired for an impressive
> amount during the last decade or were even considered "unicorns" at any
> point by anyone other than themselves?

You mean besides companies like Spotify, Rovio (Angry Birds) or Mojang
(Minecraft)?

~~~
seemslegit
That's really not that much to show for an economic superpower of almost half
a billion people and none of these companies rely on the protections offered
by Section 230. I mean maybe if you got creative enough in minecraft you could
trigger some but it's owned by Microsoft now so you'll have to deal with their
censorship first.

~~~
Communitivity
We have different ideas of success. My idea of a successful startup is not
that it must reach unicorn status, but that it either has a successful exit
where the founders and early employees comfortable enough that they can spend
time on their next startup adventure; or that the company survives and
continues to grow.

You place a lot of value in unicorns, but there are downsides to shooting to
be a unicorn too. If you make it there you may be fabulously wealthy, but
you'll have so much investment that most lose control of what they created and
many succumb to bad investments that have so much dilution the cap table
becomes upside down. Also most who aim for unicorn status ("I want to be
rich!") fail. I'm ignoring bubbles, because if you have something that has no
real contribution but rides/sparks a fad, then you can still get a lot of
investment during a bubble - don't know if you could get to unicorn status
though.

As for those companies not being capable of being platforms for hate speech:
Minecraft obviously, Spotify is music so that should be a clear possibility,
Telegram is messaging so that is also a possible. The ones that are financial
apps are unlikely hate speech platforms, unless they allow comments or
reviews.

------
merricksb
[https://archive.md/ZvSGe](https://archive.md/ZvSGe)

------
neonate
[https://archive.vn/YnYJT](https://archive.vn/YnYJT)

------
s_y_n_t_a_x
Direct link to the bill:

[https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Li...](https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Limiting-
Section-230-Immunity-to-Good-Samaritans-Act.pdf)

------
Nasrudith
I wonder if the colloquial understanding of platforms and ownership got bad
for reasons even aside from the blatant propaganda of special interests.

Back in even the 90s and 00s even the dim bulbs responding to other dim bulbs
like Yahoo or AOL doing dumb stuff like shutting down child molestation victim
support group channels from ham-handed attempts to try to moderate didn't lead
to any idiots thinking that the government should somehow punish them even
though it was rightfully called stupid and morally wrong. Was it because they
actually understood the internet existed as many small sites as well as the
big names?

------
mudil
When social media firms ban conservative voices, they need to be sued for
interference with interstate commerce. Because that's what it is.

~~~
charwalker
I'm experimenting with Markdown in this comment and may edit to reformat links
better. Actual comment:

Specifically when conservative voices are banned or a voice of any leaning? If
a voice, right or left, tweets supporting hate or violence should that be
removed with equal prejudice or left in place regardless? If it's a left wing
voice posting bannable content 9/10 times, is that unfairly banning/censoring
of left wing voices or simply the ratio that such ban-able content occurs?
Does that cross over into publisher status? I don't think so.

I ask as the outrage over specifically conservative voices being censored has
less to do with reality and more to do with loud people wanting attention as
the bias against them is [mostly made-
up]([https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/440703-evidence-
contr...](https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/440703-evidence-contradicts-
right-wing-narrative-of-tech-censorship-and-bias)).

There isn't censorship targeting right wing comments, just removal of
extremist comments that often catch vocal right wing groups MORE OFTEN than
left wing voices. There are loud people on the right (and some on the left)
spouting misinformation, disinformation, debunked conspiracy theories (think
QAnon), or outright threats and lies. These loud people and groups, when their
content is removed, get more loud and right wing media platforms embrace this
because it feeds on a common [Persecution
Complex]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion))
that is largely non existent and often linked directly to some level of what
some call privilege (White/Rich/establishment/etc). Yes, there are left wing
media platofrmas that do the same but they are not in any way as close to the
audience size as Fox News. They aren't even 'news' as in October of 2018, they
[specifically noted in their ToS they are
entertainment]([https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-
news/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/)). If you're getting the idea
that banning of conservative voices is censorship from any voice/commentator
hosted by Fox News, that's not news, it's entertainment!

I mean, look at this [summary of legal
cases]([https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/27/21272066/social-media-
bia...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/27/21272066/social-media-bias-laura-
loomer-larry-klayman-twitter-google-facebook-loss)). The majority are from
conservatives with 1 item from a democrat and most are quickly struck down as
the complain is founded on an inaccurate idea of the first amendment, namely
that the users rights were not infringed and the lawsuit attacked the
platforms rights! The platform has the right to not let you use it for your
inaccurate, biased, or even malicious content. You are not infringed upon by
being removed from that platform for those issues specifically or likely for
anything the platform deems is against their ToS or rules. In r/conservative,
this means any dissent from the established norm, even just pointing out
polling data that invalidates the headline, is an immediate ban. That's
allowed by Reddit and not under the jurisdiction of the government. It's not
lawsuit worthy either. My rights aren't being infringed if a subreddit wants
to be an echo chamber of misinformation protected by heavy censorship. There
is some schadenfreude when that sub complains of censorship of right wing
voices but rejects any sources stating it's not reflective of reality.

As a comparison, consider how climate science is presented across media. 99%
of scientists agree Climate Change is aggravated by human activity and
something we need to tackle; so does the Pentagon. 1% are the counter voices
saying it isn't an issue or human activity is not a factor. These sides are
then presented as equal (which is misinformation) and given equal weight like
debated 1v1, not 99v1 like in reality. Same thing for right wing voices and
voters across the US, [they are a
minority]([https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-
affiliation.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx)).
25% of those polled identify with the GOP even though the GOP holds more than
51% of seats in the Senate and after the 2016 election held more than 51% in
the House for that term. When this minority holding a majority is 'attacked',
everyone on connected outlets is going to hear about that (remember on some
platforms this is entertainment, not news). That's basically the commentators
first amendment right to protest the ban and definitely allowed under free
speech. That doesn't mean it's an accurate portrayal of reality just like the
censorship of right wing voices _seems_ biased but really isn't. In both
cases, the minority is extremely vocal and active disguising (or simply
ignoring) data stating otherwise. Conflict, even artificial, drives clicks and
revenue and that's what entertainment is all about.

My bigger question is how is this interference with interstate commerce? I
could see that argument applied to an influencer or commentator who is removed
from their primary platform. If they lost revenue they may even have standing.
But that still isn't an issue for Twitter, you can be removed from any
platform you don't own and should always have your own site and system set up
for hosting your content. That's preached by internet first media groups since
YouTube rose to prominence. But it isn't a violation of interstate commerce.

~~~
g-b-r
Can you clarify what you meant with "experimenting with markdown"? (since I
see you're not a new user)

~~~
charwalker
Markdown is a common formatting system for github, reddit, and a few other
sites. I like how it works so have been looking up more complex how to's and
messed around with comments on some sites to see which may support markdown
formatting. One thing it lets you do is hyperlink sites where [This would be
the link itself](and the actual website goes here) like
[Google](www.google.com). That doesn't work here, but I gave it a shot as I've
been linking that way on Reddit all week when needed. Markdown is neat, but
also a buzzword for simple text formatting.

~~~
g-b-r
Thanks, I didn't need to know what Markdown is, but thanks :)

I asked you because it seemed strange that a user with 120 points and 9 months
of usage didn't know yet that this site doesn't support Markdown or anything
close, and I wondered if they added some support lately without me noticing.

The only markup/formatting supported by Hacker News is what's described at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc](https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc)
.

------
snuxoll
I don’t see this passing constitutional muster. You have a right to free
speech as do corporations - you can be ejected from a privately owned building
for saying things the owner doesn’t agree with, the same applies to online
platforms.

This is a open and shut first amendment case.

~~~
hiram112
Not even close to open and shut.

You realize that an editorial posted on the NYTimes or Fox News site can get
them sued for libel or defamation, right? This does, in fact, happen all the
time. Read about several of the left leaning cable networks and their lawsuit
with the 'Covington Kids'. They are a publisher, and are responsible for their
content.

Google, Twitter, Reddit, etc. acted like platforms for many years, same as the
telecoms, and nobody ever complained. Look at how much influence and cash they
have. What could possibly cause them to risk this gold mine?

Donald Trump became president, and the liberal companies and employees in
Silicon Valley / West Coast lost their nerve and resorted to censorship,
decided to use their 'platforms' as their own private political tools.

Oops...

Now they can enjoy the same restrictions that other publishers have always had
to deal with. Hopefully their shareholders realize the source of the issue,
and boot the activist executives and employees, as it's now going to cost them
a lot of money, all of which they brought on themselves.

* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-settles-l...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-settles-libel-lawsuit-with-covington-catholic-student/2020/01/07/f0b21842-319e-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html)

~~~
throwawaygh
_> as it's now going to cost them a lot of money_

As one of those shareholders, from a purely profit-motive, I'm not so sure
that replacing 230 with something more onerous would be a net negative.

Moats are expensive, but also valuable.

------
scarface74
And this is all because the President got mad at Twitter on the right and the
left always think more government is the answer.

This is what happens when you get government involvement in tech.

~~~
save_ferris
Why isn't the market holding Facebook accountable for the numerous
transgressions we've seen coming out of that company over the last several
years? Because people don't understand or care how the money is made, which
fundamentally undermines the argument that the market is always right.

From broad, repeated invasions of online privacy to numerous scandals
involving state-sponsored disinformation campaigns, Facebook shows time and
again that they are not responsible corporate stewards of the internet.

Zuckerberg has got to be one of the least popular Fortune 500 CEOs and yet
he's completely invincible, investors don't want to touch him.

So how do you propose to hold such a company accountable if not through
regulation and oversight?

~~~
philistine
Investors don’t want to touch Zuckerberg because they simply cannot. He has
enough shares to be unremovable.

~~~
save_ferris
I don’t believe this is true. If an Icahn-like activist investor shorted FB
and successfully triggered a mass sell off tanking FB stock, it would be
really hard for Zuckerberg to survive that pressure, and he’d be financially
incentivized not to. You’re right in that the board doesn’t have the power to
oust him, but collective investor action could. It’s hard to find people who
want to rattle one of the most consistently performing tech stocks, though.
Unfortunately, I think the chance of something like this happening is nil.

~~~
throwaway98797
Do you think zuck cares if he’s worth 100b vs 20b?

------
ybav
Congratulations Twitter! You improved the Internet in the same way as the
Internet Archive by pushing too far.

Hope you are satisfied with all that awesome power.

------
sdwedq
I agree. I used to believe in absolute freedom of speech on the web. But then
people start sending goatsx or whatever as joke in emails. I learned to avoid
opening any links form certain friends.

MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter was nice clean space to hangout for a while.
Then horrible and traumatic pictures and videos start showing up in my feed. I
know the world is horrible place but I don't need constant reminder about it.
I unfollowed as many people as I can.

Now as a parent, I cannot constantly monitor these supposedly safe sites. I
have seen disgusting or violent videos on YouTube for Kids, Amazon Videos
aimed at kids, and even some kids shows on Netflix.

These platform should be responsible for the content they host, no matter who
uploaded. That would be one way to clean up flith.

That's why I will pay for cable TV again and let someone moderate content for
me.

~~~
g-b-r
There are filters for kids and indeed it wouldn't be bad in any way if there
were various filters on Youtube, Facebook etc., they just ought to be
voluntary (or at most imposed by one's parents).

And... this isn't going to change "kids shows on Netflix"...

