I've seen this question come up a few times, and some of it is answered in this post from a few years ago, but let me try to answer @opinionhaver.bsky.social's question directly since he asks this every time 230 comes up. www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/h... - ThreadSky

mmasnick.bsky.social • 14 days ago

I've seen this question come up a few times, and some of it is answered in this post from a few years ago, but let me try to answer @opinionhaver.bsky.social's question directly since he asks this every time 230 comes up.

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/

Comments

salvagni.org•14 days ago

📌

rahaeli.bsky.social•14 days ago

And you can confirm this by looking at what happened to small forums in the wake of the UK's Online Safety Act: thousands of small forums shut down because they would not be able to handle the liability

benwhitelaw.bsky.social•14 days ago

Is it that many? I know there were 5-10 examples that were regularly referred to. Very possible that someone is keeping a list…

rahaeli.bsky.social•14 days ago

Easier to make a list of the ones that haven't shut down.

benwhitelaw.bsky.social•13 days ago

I understand the sentiment, and you’re right they it may yet get to 1000s, but doesn’t seem like it’s there yet. Unless you know something and can share?

rahaeli.bsky.social•13 days ago

Everyone I know in the UK has lost at least half a dozen small online hangouts, and none of them are the same ones. I'm extrapolating, but I don't think I'm that far off.

benwhitelaw.bsky.social•13 days ago

I’m sorry to hear that for your UK pals and obviously I’m as worried about it as you are. But the calculation feels very finger in the air. And quite far off the current state of things.

fishqueen.bsky.social•14 days ago

Here a list done by Neil Brown
https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/

thatsjustlikeyouropinionman.com•13 days ago

@opinionhaver.bsky.social you paying attention?

mrtruscott.bsky.social•13 days ago

The efficiency I’m seeing is in terms of the administration stealing very bad ideas from everywhere. Almost like they planned it.

zwierdo.bsky.social•12 days ago

🤔 I find that hard to believe. You would have to show me some sort of 900 page document publicly available prior to the election.

mrtruscott.bsky.social•12 days ago

It shocked the world when the liar turned out to be telling the truth (planted fat in his sticky web of lies, damn lies, and smirking 1/4-truths).
Pick a card, any card. Nope! wrong card!
Off with your status as an allied government, judge, citizen etc…
High stakes. If we’d only had some sign!

bane59.bsky.social•9 days ago

I think 230 repeal would have an impact on large social media sites. Their algorithms would surely be considered part of their editorial voice and could be brought up in libel or defamation cases. And subject to discovery.

mmasnick.bsky.social•9 days ago

Such a case would fail under 1A grounds in the end. Under pre-230 law, you needed actual knowledge of content violating the law to be held liable. And no algorithm could have actual knowledge.

bane59.bsky.social•9 days ago

What about the case of an algorithm that is written to promote and amplify certain content. Perhaps even a particular lie.

For example, if the algorithm specifically identified "stop the steal" lies and showed that content at a higher rate than other content. The algorithm is part of the lie.

mmasnick.bsky.social•9 days ago

Most "stop the steal" content did not violate the law. And it can't be *general* knowledge that "some of this content violates the law." It has to be *actual* knowledge, as in *a human being knew that THIS particular piece of content was against the law*.

calixthe.blue-ocean.social•14 days ago

@unroll.skywriter.blue

unroll.skywriter.blue•14 days ago

The thread as a shareable webpage: https://skywriter.blue/pages/did:plc:cak4klqoj3bqgk5rj6b4f5do/post/3lkvv4npkds2z.

Powered by @skywriter.blue

calixthe.blue-ocean.social•14 days ago

@skyview.social unroll

thepants.bsky.social•13 days ago

I want @hankgreen.bsky.social looking at this

mmasnick.bsky.social•13 days ago

I'm sure Hank would have interesting ideas. I'm always happy to suggest some reading material if he's interested.

vinnyfists.bsky.social•14 days ago

thanks for spelling that out and the link to your prior article

andyroz.bsky.social•13 days ago

When you say "Indeed, it applies to every website on the internet and every user of those websites.", do you mean in the USA? I'm not sure US law is that useful in China, Europe, Asia or even Canada. Or are you thinking foreign sites need to block USA to ensure US lawyers stay away?

standingup.bsky.social•13 days ago

📌

fredlushoi.bsky.social•13 days ago

I am more than positive that Facebook will go along with #KOSA and #KOSMA in order to stop section 230 from being overturned and will warn netchoice not to file any lawsuits. It’s scary but I think that is what will happen. Hope I am wrong

fredlushoi.bsky.social•13 days ago

From what I heard it was the New York Supreme Court during the prodigy case that ruled company’s could be sued for what there users post. That is why section 230 was created. If Congress ends section 230 and we sue good possibility the US Supreme Court will say section 230 is unconstitutional

dealfatigue.bsky.social•13 days ago

📌

mmasnick.bsky.social•14 days ago

The real issue is you NEED to understand how 230 and the First Amendment intersect. This is a key thing that many people get wrong. The underlying issue is that MOST THINGS that companies would get sued over hosting/promoting/etc are all protected by 1A. Now, that leads some to say...

mmasnick.bsky.social•14 days ago

"Well, then, we really don't need 230 since 1A will protect." But that's wrong, as @ericgoldman.bsky.social neatly lays out in this paper. 230 provides a procedural benefit to get rid of *frivolous* cases *that would lose* but does so much earlier.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3351323

abouns.bsky.social•9 days ago

There are big problems with 230. Mostly, the timing. It’s simply too late to pass it now. Passing it now would do harm by rendering free speech dead. Passing it ten years ago would have protected the public from misinformation and hate speech.

ubermenchies.bsky.social•14 days ago

Exactly. It stops people from using the cost of litigation as a weapon against speech they don't like, even when the lawsuit will fail anyway. Really wish more people understood this. That said, I'm sure some do understand and secretly want that situation.

mmasnick.bsky.social•14 days ago

The *practical* difference, especially for smaller entities, is MASSIVE. Basically it will get a case tossed out for ~$100k rather than over $2mil. For a massive multi-billion company (Meta, Google, etc) with buildings full of lawyers, the difference is minimal.

mmasnick.bsky.social•14 days ago

Yes, they will have to pay a little bit more, but rounding error levels. For a smaller entity, the difference is existential. And that means that smaller entities will have terrible options: (1) shut down (2) cave to basically any legal threats (3) stop allowing users to communicate or...

mmasnick.bsky.social•14 days ago

(4) basically stop moderating altogether. Because (and again, this is important) under 1A precedent, for a distributor to be liable, it has to have *actual knowledge* of *violating* content. And the best way to not get actual knowledge is to stop looking/stop moderating.

blakestacey.bsky.social•14 days ago

Without 230, the fact that Wikipedia takes steps to remove vandalism, spam, attack pages, etc., would make the Foundation which owns and operates the site legally liable for any edit to Wikipedia that anybody wants to sue over.

davidnett.bsky.social•13 days ago

In the early oughts I was at a small UGC start-up that did exactly this. There was such relief around small UGC enables sites (including articles with comments) when 230 arrived & we could afford to moderate w/o fear.

mmasnick.bsky.social•14 days ago

So, the practical results: a marginally higher legal bill for big companies, but at rounding error levels, and likely LESS INCENTIVE to moderate to avoid actual knowledge.

But, the BIG loss is for smaller entities, who will now either shut down, be easily pushed around by legal threats, or...

opinionhaver.bsky.social•14 days ago

Why wouldn’t these cases increase as the number of users/posts does? The more content the greater your liability exposure. This seems to take as given that both Bluesky and meta will face the same number of these cases, but there’s an order of magnitude more content on one.

mmasnick.bsky.social•14 days ago

They wouldn't face the same number, but the number at which it becomes existential is so different. Bluesky could handle what? One such case? Two? Meta can handle a thousand and not blink. And they wouldn't face a thousand, because most lawyers would know they'd fail.

eagerpebble.com•13 days ago

I agree with you on section 230. How do you think the landscape might change if we also had a proper anti-SLAPP statute? Would that reduce the criticality of section 230? I ask not to aim for repeal but to safeguard against what has become a legislative meme.

mmasnick.bsky.social•14 days ago

Meta would probably face a few dozen. Which is peanuts to them. The underlying issue that many people miss is that MOST OF THESE CASES ARE BOGUS. Meta would not have actual knowledge of any violations, and thus the likelihood of a successful case is low.

an-elk.bsky.social•14 days ago

As soon as I saw "genuine question", I knew it wasn't.

coffeecatto.bsky.social•10 days ago

📌

psthomso.bsky.social•13 days ago

📌

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply