> You can do light moderation and we'll grant you exemption.
Another article about Section 230, another top-rated post on HN that's wrong about its origin. Section 230 was always designed from the start to allow companies to moderate legal content. "Light" moderation was never part of the equation.
Look, the people who literally wrote and sponsored Section 230 are still alive today and they are open about what their motivations were, and yet still every single time this subject comes up the top-rated comment on HN is some completely fictional notion about how Section 230 was based on an assumption that feeds wouldn't be algorithmic or wouldn't censor anybody.
And it's just factually wrong, and I don't understand why it's impossible to correct. It's difficult to have a conversation about the political/social merits of a law when people don't even understand the basic factual information about why the law exists.
Imagine if every time an article about Linux came up the top-rated HN post was someone saying that Linux was never really designed to be a desktop OS, it was always intended to just be used on servers and only on servers -- and it didn't matter if Linus Torvalds himself was out making the rounds correcting people on that, we still had to have this conversation every time Linux was mentioned. That's how HN discusses Section 230.
Section 230 was never about preventing algorithms. It was not designed to prevent "heavy" moderation. Again, the people who wrote the law are alive today and have explained their motivations.
----
Edit: it's been pointed out (correctly) that I should probably throw some sources on this. Techdirt's article is a little snarkier than I like, but is generally good (https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...), and even the Wikipedia article on Section 230 is a decent place to start looking at 230 motivations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230). There's also a fairly decent book, "The 26 words that made the modern Internet."
In regards to the parent comment, from Wikipedia:
> Service providers made their Congresspersons aware of these cases, believing that if followed by other courts across the nation, the cases would stifle the growth of the Internet. United States Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA) had read an article about the two cases and felt the decisions were backwards. "It struck me that if that rule was going to take hold then the internet would become the Wild West and nobody would have any incentive to keep the internet civil," Cox stated.
Cox's concern was not that platforms should only do "light" moderation, he wanted a way for platforms to be able to also moderate completely legal but "uncivil" content that would make it hard for platforms to be professional or organized; a "Wild West"
> "There is not a single word — not a word, not a comma, not a parenthesis, nothing — that suggests that 230 was about neutrality. In fact, what we designed it to be is if you had a conservative website, good for you! Do what you want with it! If you had a progressive website, same thing."
And if that's not convincing to you, consider that both Ron Wyden and Christopher Cox have filed an amicus brief on this very case, saying that they believe Section 230 should protect Google (https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-a...):
> The co-authors reminded the court that internet companies were already recommending content to users when the law went into effect in 1996, and that algorithms are just as important for removing undesirable posts as suggesting content users might want to see.
Really not much that can make it more clear than that, the assertion that Section 230 wasn't designed to protect algorithmic recommendations is factually wrong, this is not something that's a matter of opinion.
I've updated the post above with links to a couple of decent resources and with quotes from the original authors of Section 230, as well as with information about the recent amicus brief they filed to the Supreme Court where they explicitly argue that Section 230 should protect algorithmic recommendations.
I find this to be a common pattern. "Moderation should be there to moderate against the things that concern me, but not against anything I might want to do or see."
I interpret "light moderation" to mean "I disapprove of spam and child porn, but I'm not subject to racism or sexual harassment, and I don't personally know anybody harmed by my conspiracy theories."
>> "There is not a single word — not a word, not a comma, not a parenthesis, nothing — that suggests that 230 was about neutrality. In fact, what we designed it to be is if you had a conservative website, good for you! Do what you want with it! If you had a progressive website, same thing."
Your post is itself dishonest by (gross) omission — you don’t even mention the Communications Decency Act, the legislation that introduced Section 230.
“The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was the United States Congress's first notable attempt to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In the 1997 landmark case Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck the act's anti-indecency provisions.”
… leaving behind the indemnification provided by Section 230 intended to ensure that hosting providers were not liable for user content under the CDA.
> … leaving behind the indemnification provided by Section 230 intended to ensure that hosting providers were not liable for user content under the CDA.
> That’s it. Nothing more complicated.
What on earth about those two sentences suggests that algorithmic content wouldn't be protected or that Section 230 would require platforms to be neutral?
Again, and I can't stress this enough: the people who wrote Section 230 disagree with you. You are arguing with people who wrote Section 230 that they are wrong about their motivations about why they wrote it.
Why is this so hard for people? What part of Ron Wyden literally saying "Section 230 is not about neutrality" are people getting hung up on? What wiggle room exists in that quote? When you have the actual authors telling you that they wanted platforms to be free to be Conservative/Liberal biased, and you have the actual authors writing briefs in support of Google for the Supreme Court, where on earth are you getting the idea that Section 230 is just about pornography or illegal content, or that recommendation algorithms wouldn't be protected?
> What Wyden happens to claim now about the CDA and Section 230 is irrelevant.
With respect:
A) no it's not, or you wouldn't be on here arguing about intentions. Nobody who actually believes in Death of the Author wastes their time arguing about why a thing was originally made. If people were really embracing Death of the Author in regards to Section 230, we would just be talking about its merits, and that would be great! But instead we're doing this.
B) it's unbelievably silly to ask people to trust your memory as a random internet commenter over both the original authors and over the many academic articles and legal decisions that have been written about Section 230. I guess every single legal precedent about Section 230 is also wrong about its intentions?
C) recommendation algorithms existed when Section 230 was written. They are not a new thing that Congress didn't know about in 1996.
D) biased platforms existed when Section 230 was written. They are not a new thing that Congress didn't know about in 1996.
E) without revealing too much about my age, I was alive in 1996, and while I wasn't particularly involved in the Internet at that point, I've been involved on the Internet long enough to have seen how the conversation on Section 230 has evolved, and "evolved" the right word to use. I think the "algorithms aren't protected" argument is a fairly recent invention. The critiques people are making today are different from the critiques they used to make online.
----
And as respectfully as it is possible for me to phrase this:
Whatever your personal memory is about your motivations or the motivations of the people around you when Section 230 was proposed -- and I am not doubting you that maybe you did have a certain view of Section 230 back then, or maybe you were seeing reporting that phrased the provision in a certain light -- but that perspective is irrelevant to what the law actually says and the way it has been interpreted ever since it came out, and it is so unbelievable that Section 230's origins are so well-documented and there are still people on HN saying, "well, but those sources are all wrong, I remember what was going on at the time."
Maybe you did think of Section 230 a certain way back then. So? I'm supposed to trust you over the original authors?
In what other topic do we tolerate this kind of logic on HN? We seriously are now arguing that the bypartisan politicians who wrote Section 230 are... lying about what they meant? That's where we are right now?
At the very least, you'd better have some sources to back up what you're saying. The "algorithms are different" argument is very recent and from what I've seen doesn't really have any evidence for it suggesting that it is anything more than a fantasy about the law's origins that 230 critics would like to believe is true.
> If it were writing on a clean slate, this Court would agree with plaintiffs. AOL has certain editorial rights with respect to the content provided by Drudge and disseminated by AOL, including the right to require changes in content and to remove it; and it has affirmatively promoted Drudge as a new source of unverified instant gossip on AOL. Yet it takes no responsibility for any damage he may cause. AOL is not a passive conduit like the telephone company, a common carrier with no control and therefore no responsibility for what is said over the telephone wires. n11 Because it has the right to exercise editorial control over those with whom it contracts and whose words it disseminates, it would seem only fair to hold AOL to the liability standards applied to a publisher or, at least, like a book store owner or library, to the liability standards applied to a distributor. n12 [52] But Congress has made a different policy choice by providing immunity even where the interactive service provider has an active, even aggressive role in making available content prepared by others. In some sort of tacit quid pro quo arrangement with the service provider community, Congress has conferred immunity from tort liability as an incentive to Internet service providers to self-police the Internet for obscenity and other offensive material, even where the self-policing is unsuccessful or not even attempted.
So in summary, in 1998 courts were saying "yeah, it looks like this is a website making an explicit recommendation because it's actively promoting content instead of acting like a neutral telephone network, and we actually personally don't think that should be protected, but very clearly Congress has protected it and Section 230 applies to it." Their exact words are: "even where the interactive service provider has an active, even aggressive role in making available content prepared by others."
But sure, Section 230 was only about getting rid of porn and had nothing to do with algorithms./s The reality is that even all the way back in 1998, courts already recognized that Section 230 applied to "promoted" content and was not qualified on an assumption that platforms would act like a common carrier. Even early on, courts already recognized that Section 230 protected more content than just pornography or indecency.
Another article about Section 230, another top-rated post on HN that's wrong about its origin. Section 230 was always designed from the start to allow companies to moderate legal content. "Light" moderation was never part of the equation.
Look, the people who literally wrote and sponsored Section 230 are still alive today and they are open about what their motivations were, and yet still every single time this subject comes up the top-rated comment on HN is some completely fictional notion about how Section 230 was based on an assumption that feeds wouldn't be algorithmic or wouldn't censor anybody.
And it's just factually wrong, and I don't understand why it's impossible to correct. It's difficult to have a conversation about the political/social merits of a law when people don't even understand the basic factual information about why the law exists.
Imagine if every time an article about Linux came up the top-rated HN post was someone saying that Linux was never really designed to be a desktop OS, it was always intended to just be used on servers and only on servers -- and it didn't matter if Linus Torvalds himself was out making the rounds correcting people on that, we still had to have this conversation every time Linux was mentioned. That's how HN discusses Section 230.
Section 230 was never about preventing algorithms. It was not designed to prevent "heavy" moderation. Again, the people who wrote the law are alive today and have explained their motivations.
----
Edit: it's been pointed out (correctly) that I should probably throw some sources on this. Techdirt's article is a little snarkier than I like, but is generally good (https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...), and even the Wikipedia article on Section 230 is a decent place to start looking at 230 motivations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230). There's also a fairly decent book, "The 26 words that made the modern Internet."
In regards to the parent comment, from Wikipedia:
> Service providers made their Congresspersons aware of these cases, believing that if followed by other courts across the nation, the cases would stifle the growth of the Internet. United States Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA) had read an article about the two cases and felt the decisions were backwards. "It struck me that if that rule was going to take hold then the internet would become the Wild West and nobody would have any incentive to keep the internet civil," Cox stated.
Cox's concern was not that platforms should only do "light" moderation, he wanted a way for platforms to be able to also moderate completely legal but "uncivil" content that would make it hard for platforms to be professional or organized; a "Wild West"
Ron Wyden goes a step further in his recent interviews (https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/8/5/21339766/zuckerberg-priv...):
> "There is not a single word — not a word, not a comma, not a parenthesis, nothing — that suggests that 230 was about neutrality. In fact, what we designed it to be is if you had a conservative website, good for you! Do what you want with it! If you had a progressive website, same thing."
And if that's not convincing to you, consider that both Ron Wyden and Christopher Cox have filed an amicus brief on this very case, saying that they believe Section 230 should protect Google (https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/sen-wyden-a...):
> The co-authors reminded the court that internet companies were already recommending content to users when the law went into effect in 1996, and that algorithms are just as important for removing undesirable posts as suggesting content users might want to see.
Really not much that can make it more clear than that, the assertion that Section 230 wasn't designed to protect algorithmic recommendations is factually wrong, this is not something that's a matter of opinion.