if you know me you know i love a good takedown of shoddy, irresponsible journalism. this one from @mmasnick is a banger.
it's incredible how many people who are furiously opposed to section 230 have so little idea of what it does (and doesn't do)
@molly0xfff economist @DeanBaker13 has a serious proposal to get rid of section 230: https://www.cepr.net/section-230-can-we-talk-about-it/
@hardindr @molly0xfff @DeanBaker13 and I have a long debunking of Baker's position on this: https://www.techdirt.com/2021/12/29/those-who-dont-understand-section-230-are-doomed-to-repeal-it/
@mmasnick @hardindr @molly0xfff My most version for anyone interested https://www.cepr.net/section-230-can-we-talk-about-it/
@DeanBaker13 @hardindr @molly0xfff In which you still refuse to understand the 1st Amendment and how distributor liability worked pre-230. I told you this before. You still refuse to do the necessary research and so you publish misleading things
@mmasnick @hardindr @molly0xfff
I thought you agreed that the bounds of distributor liability were determined by the law (which I am advocating changing) and NOT the 1st Amendment. Are you know saying this is part of the constitution?
So without Section 230, you would either see the end of social media (since you can now sue any website out of existence because one of their users posted something without their knowledge or consent), or websites would simply stop moderating content so they aren't classified as an editor (because, as an editor, they would become responsible for what their user's post).
Either outcome is not desirable.
@scott I don't believe that claim. I know Elon Musk ain't too sharp, but he can pay people who are competent https://www.cepr.net/section-230-can-we-talk-about-it/
@scott why do you feel the need to spread defamatory content in your line of work?
I know you intend well, and you even have provisions that you think will protect the small players. But even those will backfire and wind up biting the small players.
@scott I'm sorry, I was being needlessly sarcastic, but I'm still trying to figure out what is at issue. You have something posted on your site by a 3rd party. Someone sends you a takedown request that explains exactly what is defamatory and why. How can it be so hard to either take the material down or make a judgement that it can be safely ignored?
You have something posted on your site by a 3rd party. Someone sends you a takedown request that explains exactly what is defamatory and why. How can it be so hard to either take the material down or make a judgement that it can be safely ignored?
First of all, how will I know which one of you is telling the truth? I don't have a private investigator on staff that can research you and the other person to figure out which one of you is lying.
You claim that person is defaming you. That person says you are filing a false report and harassing them. Who exactly am I supposed to believe? Even if both sides provided evidence, how do I know that it wasn't fabricated?
And, what is worse, is that if I pick sides and am wrong, I could be held liable myself.
If the post violates our Terms of Service, we will remove it. For example, harassment, threats, etc. will be taken down. But since we don't know which one of you is lying, we will wait for a court order that tells us what to do. And we will comply with that court order.
@scott Your call, print and broadcast outlets make this determination ALL THE TIME. I wouldn't think that people running Internet platforms are so much less competent.
Your call, print and broadcast outlets make this determination ALL THE TIME. I wouldn't think that people running Internet platforms are so much less competent.
I am surprised you would bring up the media as an example of someone making decisions on what is defamation or not. They don't make that determination at all. In fact, they regularly use the word "allegedly" so they can say what they want and not be liable for defamation. Because saying that a person "allegedly" did something is not legally the same as saying someone did something.
And you also have to factor in the difference between large media outlets and small players. The major media outlets have a legal department and small businesses usually don't. So, once again, you are harming small players that don't have lawyers on standby by going after the big guys.
And I am a bit shocked that you would think that the mainstream media is accurate and that they don't spread disinformation. Allegedly, they are the worse offenders.
Besides that, media outlets write their own materials or hire people to write materials and have full editorial control. Social media apps, forums, and mobile phone companies do NOT have the same control over what people say on their platform. You are comparing applies with oranges.
@scott did you read my piece -- it's not long.
And you are still limiting the small guys. So if I sell something, I can't promote it without losing protection from lawsuits? If I ask for donations, that is still selling something. So I can't even ask for help paying for the server, since asking is an ad.
I know your intentions are good, but proposals like this wind up getting amended in the legislative process, usually because of lobbyists for the big guys, and then the small players pay the price, yet again.
@DeanBaker13 @hardindr @molly0xfff Distributor liability is still bound by the 1st Amendment, because it's liability based on speech. Which means that, per multiple 1st Amendment lawsuits, there are standards of what it takes to make a distributor liable. And you.. acknowledge literally none of them.
@mmasnick @hardindr @molly0xfff Section 230 was written to remove a liability that apparently was allowed under the First Amendment, otherwise it would have made no sense, which you refuse to acknowledge.