genuine question, what is the argument against doing this in terms of what would actually happen (not the legal technicalities, the actual real world impacts), and why it would be worse than what is happening right now? - ThreadSky

opinionhaver.bsky.social • 16 days ago

genuine question, what is the argument against doing this in terms of what would actually happen (not the legal technicalities, the actual real world impacts), and why it would be worse than what is happening right now?

Reposted from paris martineau

NEW: As early as next week, Senators plan to introduce the first bipartisan bill to repeal Section 230, the landmark internet law

I spoke with congressional aides to get the details of the ambitious effort, which internet experts described as akin to extortion
www.theinformation.com/articles/exc...

Comments

thatsjustlikeyouropinionman.com•15 days ago

If you expose the platforms to liability for moderating/distributing user-generated content then social media sites like bluesky become too risky to operate. All Sec230 really says is "if you moderate content, you don't become responsible for the content." It literally protects content moderation.

thatsjustlikeyouropinionman.com•15 days ago

Without Sec230, anything a user posts becomes a potential liability for the platform. That isn't workable at scale. You'd be requiring that they review, approve, and assume legal liability for every single user submission. Not only is that impractical/impossible, it's very anti free speech.

bernieburner7.bsky.social•15 days ago

Genuine answer:
Google/Meta could afford to defend frivolous litigation. Any smaller business either:
1. Shuts all user features or kills usability with costly pre-moderation.
2. Ceases all moderation (think what it would be like if the first 100 replies to your post were spam or porn).

presidentgoku.bsky.social•15 days ago

they would have to take away the ability to post publicly if they wanted to be safe. you'd be looking at "social media" that's just approved accounts/posts and private communications on par with group chats. would feel a lot like syndicated TV with comment sections that only show your mutuals

datadrivenfp.bsky.social•13 days ago

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-you-should-know-about-section-230-the-rule-that-shaped-todays-internet
It means if you post that Elon & TFFG are Nazis, they can't sue BSKY.
It would mean a massive restriction in free speech.

marble47.bsky.social•16 days ago

Also genuine because I am not a Law Knower, but people often say it would cause running small social networks to become impossible. Not true or not bad?

converselina.bsky.social•15 days ago

trans people are yeeted off of the public internet entirely

anything remotely queer is impossible to get hosted anywhere because websites have no safe harbor of "it's user-generated content, not us"

many more anodyne websites than PornHub stop operating in certain states altogether

converselina.bsky.social•15 days ago

literally no more sexual education information on the Internet because any random state prosecutor could charge the website with contributing to the delinquency of a minor or whatever the local jurisdiction calls it instead

converselina.bsky.social•15 days ago

getting rid of Section 230 as part of FOSTA-SESTA has already driven a bunch of sex workers off of the Internet because platforms don't want to take responsibility for consensual activity between adults and online age validation is even worse

converselina.bsky.social•15 days ago

basically the United States would become a dramatically less free place to have opinions online, because the corporate overlords of any particular space will have no choice but to censor to the standards that keep them out of legal hot water

marginalized people would have less online presence

socialism.tools•16 days ago

small social media sites would need to shut down and become impossible to start without big VC money

jasonandrade.bsky.social•15 days ago

Given you’ve now had Genuine Answers (tm) by people in this thread generally and @mmasnick.bsky.social specifically, do you feel like you now understand the argument against doing this Bill?

Do you agree/disagree?

mishyana.bsky.social•13 days ago

It is disingenuous at *best* to not notice the very, very obvious downsides to this.

foolishmortal.bsky.social•16 days ago

I post "Elon Musk is in the pocket of the Red Chinese" and then he sues Bluesky for defamation. Repeat 10,000 times.

nicovallone.bsky.social•15 days ago

All discussion of abortion would be banned online, on any website that can be accessed by a Texas IP. Ditto for most LGBT content, pro-Palestine content, etc. Platforms attempting to evade liability would over-enforce. Smaller platforms would not be able to survive.

nicovallone.bsky.social•15 days ago

If I post copyrighted content in the comments of your blog, you get hit with a DMCA and are liable. If I post CSAM in the comments on your blog, you go to prison.

peeinian420.bsky.social•15 days ago

By what legality though? It's legal to discuss abortion in public forums. I could see it meaning you have to moderate things like death threats away very aggressively but I don't get the general speech concern (genuinely stating, not trying to provoke)

nicovallone.bsky.social•15 days ago

Outside of maybe Facebook, no platform is going to go to court to defend each and every accusation of a user “aiding or abetting” an abortion, which is illegal in Texas. They will just ban all discussion of abortion.

nwbvt.bsky.social•15 days ago

It would make it impossible to host any web application involving user submissions, be they social media websites or just comment sections on a blog, without a significant staff available to scrub such submissions of anything controversial.

theycallmebruce.bsky.social•16 days ago

The answer is that any social media platform that allows criticism of the Trump administration will be targeted for litigation to the extent that they will either have to shut down or start censoring posts that criticize the Trump administration.

disheveledyoshi.bsky.social•15 days ago

The largest social media platforms (TikTok, Meta, X) are already censoring content that’s critical of Trump. Except right now, those decisions are being hashed out in backrooms as opposed to public courts

daphnelawless.com•15 days ago

Yes. That's the point. The big platforms can bribe or litigate their way out of it. No small platform or forum can survive. This is a pro-oligarchy bill.

disheveledyoshi.bsky.social•15 days ago

I don’t think whether or not small platforms exist matters as much as whether billionaires have completely unchecked ability to influence billions of people

thatsjustlikeyouropinionman.com•15 days ago

repealing 230 does nothing the check the power of billionaires. All it does is chill free expression on the internet.

tovanish.kimdokja.company•15 days ago

small platforms matter because they can be a counterpoint to the larger ones. bigger platforms have shown they'll obew already so there have to be alternatives for people to spread information

daphnelawless.com•15 days ago

Great, so you want to allow the Trump DOJ to shut down platforms for allowing trans people or Palestinians to post on them

sharkcheese.bsky.social•15 days ago

This mindset that compels people to support measures that kick the shins of the things they hate while causing a bunch of collateral, sometimes lethal damage to many things that don't directly affect them is hard to describe as anything other than selfish and stupid.

davidjorgonson.bsky.social•15 days ago

Real world impact is nobody would have a forum or a comment section or anything like that, especially smaller websites.
The giants with lots of lawyers might find a way to continue, but nobody else would allow user comments or content

carthaged.bsky.social•16 days ago

For our purposes, I now believe that repealing 230 will result in a torrent of defamation litigation aimed at blue sky itself. Right now they can try to sue users, but bluesky will be able to get out of the cases for a reasonable amount of money in fees. That won’t be true without 230.

randyhermanlaw.com•16 days ago

RIP your mentions

jakehalloran.bsky.social•16 days ago

big companies would be fine (they have lawyers to deal with it). nothing would change for them. small companies would be fucked over.

digifox.binaryden.net•16 days ago

Bluesky would almost certainly need to shut down

digifox.binaryden.net•16 days ago

Independent Web forums would all basically need to shut down unless the owners are really fucking brave

bjc860.bsky.social•15 days ago

A real world impact means you're going back to Twitter or Facebook, because Bluesky would cease to exist.

johnbrownbread.bsky.social•15 days ago

From someone who covers and knows a lot about tech policy:

johnbrownbread.bsky.social•16 days ago

Here is a good reason: Would you trust the Trump administration with the power to sue social media sites for post on their website?

whiteroseafa.bsky.social•15 days ago

As I understand 230. It will essentially allow the government to go after platforms for the speech used on them, because it will consider them a publisher.

HitlerFan1488 posts about about killing X group, the government can treat the platform like they said it.

whiteroseafa.bsky.social•15 days ago

How will the Trump administration handle this? Think they'll go after X or Facebook? No, they protect their own and attack others. They will selectively target platforms. Unfavored platforms go medieval on speech or get shut down.

whiteroseafa.bsky.social•15 days ago

For an even handed, normal administration this would probably be bad. For the Trump administration this would allow them to destroy speech they dislike because someone somewhere on the platform is saying bad stuff.

whiteroseafa.bsky.social•15 days ago

You saw how Trump bullied Columbia University and that prestigious white shoe lawfirm, right? It would allow him to do that to every social media site, email provider, web service, etc.

If there's a worst time for that bill it's now.

krispykola.bsky.social•16 days ago

My only hesitation is that this has Republican support, too, and I don't trust them.

digifox.binaryden.net•16 days ago

on this particular issue the Democrats really haven't been significantly better, the only thing that's been keeping it from happening is there's some awareness that it'll be weaponized by the other side.

ealluia.bsky.social•16 days ago

I think there is a solution here in making certain forms of algorithmic promotion subject to civil liability, but if you just make any online platform subject to liability for content published on it, you're going to make it easy to bury any forum w/o deep pockets in lawsuits.

erin-g2025.bsky.social•15 days ago

Anyone remember what a CB RADIO is? I think it might be time to get one or two.

klondikemike.bsky.social•15 days ago

yup!

opinionhaver.bsky.social•16 days ago

people always get really heated about this, but every objection raised that I've seen has been either something that is already happening or something that would be actively good.

thejasonkelley.com•15 days ago

230 protects users. If you reshare something that someone else posts, you aren’t going to be the plaintiff in a lawsuit right now. Without 230, Trump and Elon could send demand letters to every single person who reskeets something that makes them feel bad, says Teslas are bad cars, etc.

thejasonkelley.com•15 days ago

Tapping the sign https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/section-230-good-actually

errantv.bsky.social•16 days ago

I think the biggest argument is that it would make the emergence of novel platforms like bluesky nonviable. Established players like Meta have the financial resources to litigate the charges that would be brought against them for their users content, newcomers wouldn't.

oneoneder.bsky.social•15 days ago

Established players like Meta have deep pockets and are actually worth sueing

sashotodorov.bsky.social•15 days ago

Though, on the flipside, Elon Mush (and Thiel, for that matter) have proven that the VC set is absolutely willing to bankroll the destruction of companies.

oneoneder.bsky.social•15 days ago

That's fair! I just think people are being a bit strange about the value of suing people with no money vs the value of suing people with all the money.

VCs may bankroll the destruction of social media, but they would do so making a lot of payouts to plaintiff's firms bankrolled by PE funds.

sashotodorov.bsky.social•15 days ago

True, though they would probably use plaintiff's firms already tightly aligned with the Trump movement - like Harder Stonerock, which is functionally defense side, even though it accomplishes this work through active defamation/libel litigation.

othiym23.bsky.social•15 days ago

I guess my question is, where are Gawker and Jezebel now, and why?

There's more to this than the financial motivations.

dingokayfabe.bsky.social•14 days ago

Again, the goal is often to shut somebody up. Money is secondary, if a priority at all. This is especially true with the sort of obviously doomed cases we are discussing.

loudpenitent.bsky.social•15 days ago

The goal isn't to get money, it's to crush competitors or small outlets

famblyguy.bsky.social•14 days ago

The goal isn’t to win a case, it’s to ruin people by having to defend lawsuits. Eg: Let’s say a defamation suit can cost upwards of $100k to defend, you aren’t guaranteed to recover costs even if you win

The winning isn’t really the point, it’s to make businesses financially unviable contesting it

jise.bsky.social•15 days ago

The problem is that you won't get any money, the companies still have 1st amendment, and can afford to fight up until SC says so. Smaller companies can't.

dingokayfabe.bsky.social•14 days ago

Yeah, but we’re talking about lawsuits filed to suppress speech, often with little care for whether a financial award is ever adjudicated

bjc860.bsky.social•15 days ago

And they still won't lose any money accepted to pay their attorneys win these cases. Because they can afford it.

ashleylatke.bsky.social•15 days ago

The suing isn’t actually about winning and getting money, it’s about shutting the platform down, which is easier to do to small platforms with no money

mrrichard.bsky.social•16 days ago

Bluesky will be gone. If it were applied evenly, the whole public internet could adapt. In practice, some bot farm will spin up somewhere, drop csam on every non-nazi open forum, they'll all be ordered inaccessible by the 5th circuit, and social media will just be for Nazi propaganda.

icarusrising23.bsky.social•15 days ago

If Social Media platforms can be held liable for what users post to them, they might tamp down of violence and bullying, or maybe even close up altogether.

Wait, why am I against this????

blakestacey.bsky.social•15 days ago

Without Section 230, platforms would face the "moderator's dilemma": making any effort to moderate the content people post makes you liable for everything you didn't catch. So, either you *strictly* control *everything*, or you don't filter *at all*.

https://bsky.app/profile/mmasnick.bsky.social/post/3lkvv4ogydu2z

realtime.crt.video•15 days ago

you are on a social media platform right now

icarusrising23.bsky.social•15 days ago

If twitter, Facebook, Instagram, twitter, etc., all shut down tonight i think I'd be okay.

bernieburner7.bsky.social•15 days ago

If 230 is repealed they’d be the only ones left (they can afford to stump up millions to defend their 1A rights).

Every small business, or product site with a community forum where users share tips/expertise/solve each others technical queries etc. would have to shutter.

sharkcheese.bsky.social•15 days ago

Because the social media platforms have the money to protect themselves, both in court and with bribes. This targets smaller platforms and open/self hosted platforms.

famblyguy.bsky.social•14 days ago

Right now there’s zero legal distinction between a platform and a publisher. If 230 goes then platforms will have a choice. They either moderate absolutely everything or they moderate nothing at all. There will be no middle ground. If they moderate at all, they’re liable for their users posts.

famblyguy.bsky.social•14 days ago

Any well-meaning person who thinks this won’t be a problem, and that it will lead to an increase in moderation & a better internet, hasn’t really considered the other option, that large platforms could simply turn any attempt at moderation off, avoiding any liability. It’ll be cheaper too

famblyguy.bsky.social•14 days ago

And any website that doesn’t fancy users wanting to post gore pics, open racism etc, will have to moderate almost every single other post out of existence or risk the US government (esp under Trump), or maybe some ideological billionaire ruining them with expensive litigation

famblyguy.bsky.social•14 days ago

It will not be the online right who suffers under this idea, they’re obscenely well connected, funded and bankrolled, it’ll largely be outgroups and the American left. Who can crowdfund an appeal when the post you put on a fundraising site can open that site up to liability?

tokenize.bsky.social•15 days ago

Websites and social networks not already deemed publishers will likely be affected by the government issuing EOs or similar declaring topics like LGBTQ+ discussion, abortion advocacy, protest organization, etc. as somehow punishable.

tokenize.bsky.social•15 days ago

They will then go in and find cherry picked examples to pursue ruinous legal cases against websites and social networks hosting user-generated content. Those sites will shutter or begin auto-blocking/banning users for fear of reprisal, but it’s a losing battle.

tokenize.bsky.social•15 days ago

How’s that different than now? They are litigating/threatening sites and institutions in public now, on Fox News, etc. with no section 230, things will start going dark through legal threats and NDAs. Basically, what FISA and the Bush admin did minus warrant canaries

mrrichard.bsky.social•15 days ago

Without section 230, these frivolous, slap cases that only have real chances in front of hard right judges become legal slam dunk cases where smaller social providers are not just in danger of losing their businesses, but going to jail for life because a botnet posted csam.

tokenize.bsky.social•15 days ago

I’m actually pro elimination where algorithmic promotion is used (think: TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, etc.) because if you’re promoting content for engagement, you should be responsible for what you’re promoting.

But this nuance is not part of the current proposals

buchman.bsky.social•15 days ago

This is about where I am.

tokenize.bsky.social•15 days ago

It would accelerate the collapse of organizing in public, and I imagine the next move is to infiltrate group chats and non-public organizing forums with government-aligned snitches.

The real question around eliminating section 230 is, “why the fuck would you do this now?”

tokenize.bsky.social•15 days ago

The standard in 230 is reasonable effort, and while people can debate the merits of that standard, without it, there’s little hope to curb generative A.I. and bad actors triggering accountability for now-publishers

tokenize.bsky.social•15 days ago

One last tin-foil hat point since people are liking earlier posts: without 230, why would a rightwing group, like a clan of 4chan chuds, not start posting a deluge of generative content violating some law or standard, thereby overwhelming and shuttering a service like Bluesky?

carthaged.bsky.social•16 days ago

I have thought about 230 a lot in my real capacity. It may have been advantageous to us if we had amended in the mid 10s, because it could have theoretically reigned in Facebook/instagram/twitter at their most uncut and destructive. But the time is past, and protecting small is the live priority.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply