[Rancid]

As you guys know, Trump has been railing for the repeal of section 230 of a telecommunications law that was passed in the 90s.

The law allows social media companies to police the content on their sites without legal liabilities (this is the part Trump and Trumpsters hates), it also allows these sites to not be liable for what users post on their services (you can't sue twitter for say, Trump spreading dangerous lies on twitter).

Let's for the moment assume it were repealed. How does that affect pofo? Would pofo have to remove the conspiracy theory section on here? Perhaps pofo is a small enough site that no one would care about? Also, Pofo is not hosted in the US anyway, so perhaps it doesn't matter.

Also, Trump and his supporters are kind of fucking dumb, because they would be the first group of people targeted with law suits if this were repealed. Also, their beloved Parler would also be the first targeted to get shutdown (as that is a conspiracy theory media platform). No surprises here though, the people that claim to be the defenders of democracy and the constitution have demonstrated they are its biggest enemies. We're talking about a dim witted segment of the population that doesn't know its head from its ass and is very willing to shoot itself in the foot by supporting this repeal.

Anyway, doesn't look like the repeal is going to happen, but still, something interesting.

[B0ycey]

Only 18 days to go Rancid. I wouldn't worry about it now. Although good luck policing the internet for anyone who tries.

[Politics_Observer]

@Rancid

The only reason why Trump wanted to repeal it was because he was getting fact checked by Twitter and he didn't like it. He thought it would better enable people to see through his lies and thus harm his chances at getting re-elected. That's why Trump wanted it repealed. Another effect that repealing Section 230 might have had is a lot of websites and companies might have went underground on the dark web where they would be harder to trace by a lawsuit. I could also see a potential effect of any repeal would be that cyber-crime would become more prevalent too. It's kinda like when they made alcohol illegal during prohibition and the side effect was that organized crime flourished.

[Drlee]

Without Section 230 the entire internet would just become a feast for lawyers. Just as has happened to a lesser extent with patent law, these unscrupulous attorneys would make fortunes on settlements.

I can see the advertisements on TV now:

SYMPATHETIC VOICE:

"Have you or someone you love been dissed on the internet? Has some bad actor thrown shade on you or your posse? Has someone posted your STD status on your timeline? You don't have to take it. You may be eligible for a substantial cash settlement. Just call the Legal Beagles...Internet lawyers who care for you. "

[Rancid]

The only reason why Trump wanted to repeal it was because he was getting fact checked by Twitter and he didn't like it.

Of course, which shows how stupid he is.

[AFAIK]

It's already easy to sue websites for hosting content you dislike. You can copy & paste a post onto a random blog, backdate it and sue the original host for copyright infringement. How did a Pakistani living in Islamabad hire a builder that only operates in south London to work on his house? Pay $10,000 to a lawyer to find out. Or just delete the post.

Germany requires facebook to remove distasteful content within 4 hours of it being reported or face fines. I'm sure it would be easy enough to structure a law that would make sense on the internet especially since tech companies already own big stakes in both the democrat and the republican parties.

As for Pofo; what if the law included this line: "This only applies to websites with over 1 billion members."

[Prosthetic Conscience]

If the proposal was to make all websites liable for comments on them, it'd shut down most social media (and forums like PoFo); someone responsible on the site would have to pre-clear all posts. That becomes a full-time job quickly, so the entire economics of the web changes - either you pay to have your post cleared, or the commenters/forum members are restricted to those who are known to bring in eyeballs to pay for the moderation (or are thought so trustworthy they would never post anything dodgy). And it would stop anything being a conversation; there'd be delays while each post is OKed.

If the idea is to give sites freedom from being sued as long as they don't moderate in any way, then everything that takes that option turns into 4chan. Because there are now enough malignant people who would take delight in destroying any site they had a grudge against.

[Sivad]

Without Section 230 the entire internet would just become a feast for lawyers.

No it wouldn't, all a repeal of 230 would do is make it impossible for social media platforms to moderate any content that didn't violate federal law. There's a ton of case law protecting distributors/carriers from liability that's entirely separate from 230. Every post in this thread is wrong and stupid.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

No it wouldn't, all a repeal of 230 would do is make it impossible for social media platforms to moderate any content that didn't violate federal law.

You say that as if it would be a Good Thing. That is, as I said, turning it into 4chan (or even 8chan, since their denizens seem to think 4chan was too restrictive). Sites currently have the choice to not moderate anything that doesn't break laws; but section 230 gives them the ability to moderate, if they want. You choose to hang out here, knowing that moderation here is not just a matter of following national laws. Because that's what a lot of civilised people want, so there is room for sites like that. People in the USA can still post on 8chan.

Repealing section 230 drastically cuts down choice on the web, unless you replace it with something even better designed to enable a variety of conversations.

[Sivad]

You say that as if it would be a Good Thing. That is, as I said, turning it into 4chan (or even 8chan, since their denizens seem to think 4chan was too restrictive). Sites currently have the choice to not moderate anything that doesn't break laws; but section 230 gives them the ability to moderate, if they want. You choose to hang out here, knowing that moderation here is not just a matter of following national laws. Because that's what a lot of civilised people want, so there is room for sites like that. People in the USA can still post on 8chan.

Repealing section 230 drastically cuts down choice on the web, unless you replace it with something even better designed to enable a variety of conversations.

I don't think it would be a good thing, repealing 230 is a terrible policy that should never be enacted. 230 needs to be reformed so platforms can moderate abusive trolling and obscene content but are prohibited from censoring civil discourse. Giant tech corporations should not be allowed to act as the arbiters of truth in our society. Given the choice between 8chan or big tech censorship, I'll take 8chan.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

230 needs to be reformed so platforms can moderate abusive trolling and obscene content but are prohibited from censoring civil discourse. Giant tech corporations should not be allowed to act as the arbiters of truth in our society.

You can already find sites that will allow all of what you personally regard as "civil discourse". Sites get to choose their level of moderation. Why prohibit what some people want?

[Sivad]

You can already find sites that will allow all of what you personally regard as "civil discourse". Sites get to choose their level of moderation. Why prohibit what some people want?

I'm talking about the big social media platforms that can sway elections and really manipulate the mass mind, they have too much power to be left in the control of a handful of oligarchs. Sites like pofo should be totally exempt from all regulations and liability and allowed to moderate however they want.

[Drlee]

I'm talking about the big social media platforms that can sway elections and really manipulate the mass mind, they have too much power to be left in the control of a handful of oligarchs.

They are not without control. The government can control them any time it wants. Further, the government is actively trying to break up these semi monopolies. But I understand that you reject private property rights.....wait.

Sites like pofo should be totally exempt from all regulations and liability and allowed to moderate however they want.

So Neoman's rights are more important than Zuckerberg's rights because......money? I don't think Neoman is trying to be Facebook so this is not meant to be a slight. But you seem to think that because someone is successful they should be censored?

[AFAIK]

@Drlee Why are you making it personal? We're discussing the regulation of businesses here. It's not like implementing the GDPR affected Zuckerberg when he was out of the office.