Back

@DeanBaker13
This might be(?) the first time I've seen a well argued case for modifying 230. Still not sure I'm convinced that unintended consequences wouldn't harm more than it would help.

I wonder if @mmasnick has a counter point already...
@GreenFire

@timjan @DeanBaker13 @GreenFire I've done the counterpoint to Dean thing in the past. I can't do it every time he tweaks his proposal. Last I checked he still misunderstood the nature of the 1st Amendment & distributor liability if you removed 230.

https://www.techdirt.com/2021/12/29/those-who-dont-understand-section-230-are-doomed-to-repeal-it/

@mmasnick @timjan @GreenFire I have responded to Mike's posts in the past. (He seems upset that I modify the proposal based on criticisms -- I plead guilty on that.) Not to rehash everything, but he seems to argue that removing Section 230 protection would raise costs, but somehow not advantage smaller sites that still benefit from it. That seems hard to understand on this planet.

@DeanBaker13 @mmasnick @timjan @GreenFire I gotta admit I'm not even sure what sites he refers to when he's referring to smaller sites. Section 230 helped create the giant social media companies, and because of that, the smaller sites have mostly died.

@david1 @DeanBaker13 @timjan @GreenFire no, section 230 enabled tons of smaller sites and much greater competition. I did a whole research report on this.

And it enabled SITES LIKE THE ONE WE'RE ON.

@mmasnick @david1 @timjan @GreenFire
Unless I'm mistaken, this site does not sell advertising or personal information, which means it would still have Section 230 protection under my proposal. There are many other similar sites. Also, if 230 protection is valuable, sites that currently take ads or sell personal information can change the way they operate.

@DeanBaker13 @david1 @timjan @GreenFire "Also, if 230 protection is valuable, sites that currently take ads or sell personal information can change the way they operate."

Tell me you're an academic who has NEVER had to run a small business without telling me you're an academic who has never had to run a small business.

Holy shit Dean. That's embarrassing.

@mmasnick @david1 @timjan @GreenFire

Yeah, I will disagree with you and sorry, I don't find it embarrassing. Businesses change the way they operate ALL THE TIME. Sorry if you are not aware of that fact.

@DeanBaker13 @david1 @timjan @GreenFire I run a business. It relies on 230 to host a community and advertising to stay in business. You want me to lose the part of my business that's important to me (the community) if I want to be able to keep it in business.

That's insane. It's academic foolishness from an out of touch ivory tower with no actual real world experience.

@DeanBaker13 @david1 @timjan @GreenFire if we got rid of the community (as would be necessary without 230, we'd get less advertising and still die). if we got rid of advertising... we wouldn't make enough money to survive and would go under as well.

Congrats. Thanks for killing Techdirt in your grand experiment based on vibes.

@mmasnick @david1 @timjan @GreenFire I can't say I know Techdirt's business -- maybe you do post lots of things that are arguably defamatory. I have no idea, but I have to say, I would not design policy around ensuring one company's survival, even yours.

@DeanBaker13 Dean, come on. Those who do not post defamatory information get sued ALL THE TIME. https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/06/judge-dismisses-techdirt-lawsuit/

And I was giving you one example to show how it would create problems, not saying "just my business" faces this issue.

I've said in the past that I've regretted interacting with you. This is why.

@mmasnick Print and broadcast media deal with defamation lawsuits, I am at a loss to understand why you insist that Internet platforms can do it, especially when offered the safe harbor of removing potentially defamatory material after notice has been given.

@DeanBaker13 we get on average two dozen bogus defamation threats per year. I spend a ridiculous amount of money on lawyers dealing with them already.

If you put in your solution, that likely goes up an order of magnitude.

I'll make you a deal: will you agree to pay my legal bills and the legal bills of other small companies dealing with such things? If so, then we can discuss your proposal seriously.

@mmasnick Obviously you would have to change your policy on comments. You would have to review the ones where you get a takedown notice. My guess is that the vast majority of instances would be totally frivolous and easily ignored. There will be some that will be plausible and in those cases you can quickly remove the risk by taking them down. Right, I don't see that as an impossible burden given the benefits.

@DeanBaker13 it's this dismissive attitude that just really gets to me. "Obviously you would have to destroy your business and make it untenable to continue, just to make sure the biggest tech companies have no more competition" is what I hear when you say stuff like that.

Please, Dean, I beg of you: TALK TO PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY RUN A BUSINESS impacted by these laws. Stop dismissing real people. You're advocating for a policy that will do serious harm.

@DeanBaker13 already we get TONS of complaints. You say "oh you can just ignore the frivolous ones." You have no idea. Without 230, YOU CANNOT IGNORE THE FRIVOLOUS ONES because the FRIVOLOUS ONES TURN INTO LAWSUITS.

You ignored my earlier question: will you agree to pay my legal bills? These lawsuits each will cost in the low six figures just to get a dismissal.

@mmasnick @DeanBaker13 Dean keeps saying your business will be unaffected just so long as it abandons its revenue stream. What businessman can possibly object to that?

@rst @mmasnick FWIW, I did not say no businesses would be affected. Many would be able change their business model, some would not. The issue here is how many sites that rely on advertising or selling personal info could not take responsibility for monitoring comments and ads (like print or broadcast outlets). I'm sure the ones impacted would not be zero, but the reality is no change is ever going to have zero negative consequences.

@DeanBaker13 @mmasnick Let's turn this around. Elon's explicit plan for Twitter is to pivot from ad-based revenue to subscription services, including add-ons like payments. (Their revenue from sale of user data is negligible.) That won't work for Elon because he's insane. But it might work for Zuck.

Would you be happy if it did? Of course not, because your goal is to hurt Facebook and Twitter. And you're so maniacally focused on that that you don't care if it kills any plausible competition.

@rst @mmasnick Neither of us knows if switching to a subscription model would work for Musk or Zuckerberg, but one thing I would be very confident predicting is that both sites would be much smaller as subscription-based sites. If that is the case, their moderation decisions have less impact, which would be a very good thing.

@DeanBaker13 @rst also, you know why it would make those sites smaller? because people who aren't well off and privileged like yourself, won't be able to afford to subscribe.

Very progressive of you.

@mmasnick @rst They could come to this site, what's the problem?

@DeanBaker13 @rst they... can come here now too. why must the law deny them other sites?

@mmasnick The law doesn't -- newsflash 97 percent of the people in the country have a cellphone -- I realize in Masnick world I guess that means they are all rich, but if people value seeing certain sites, they can pay for them like they do cell phones.

@DeanBaker13 @mmasnick i make a decent amount of money but i also live in a country (australia) where cost of living (esp housing) is fairly high, so subscribing to each and every outlet i find valuable would bankrupt me. it's not a realistic option for non-rich people here and probably in many other countries.

@crumbleneedy @mmasnick In this country we have cable packages where people can pay a fee, typically between $60-$100 a month) to subscribe to literally hundreds of cable channels. I imagine that if we went this route we would see similar bundling options and probably at considerably lower prices (you wouldn't be paying to watch NFL football).

@DeanBaker13 @mmasnick streaming services are fragmenting, the number of media outlets, podcasts, newsletters etc that i could potentially subscribe to grows daily - here, in the US (where i'm from originally), europe, etc etc. it's not scalable for consumers.

@crumbleneedy @mmasnick Can't see why it wouldn't be scalable -- say Musk wants to charge $3 a month for Twitter, and there are a number of smaller sites charging a $1 or $2 per month and maybe many will charge almost nothing. Why couldn't a service bundle 200 or 300 together and charge $30 a month? (People used to pay this much -- adjusted for inflation -- for newspaper subscriptions.)

@DeanBaker13 @mmasnick 'why couldn't?' maybe someone could, but nobody is, the infrastructure (means of bundling multiple outlets across different platforms, collecting payments, app(s) for consuming, etc) doesn't exist, and in the meantime, the trends are going in the opposite direction, so making it necessary for a content provider to charge in order to stay in business means putting more content out of reach of more people.

@crumbleneedy @DeanBaker13 also, the "bundlers" would immediately become the new gatekeepers, and way more powerful than the things Dean currently fears. Meaning... Meta, Google, Apple, and Microsoft would immediately take them over.