Posts: 13,934
Threads: 1,261
Joined: May 2025
Sarcany wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
I'm thinking maybe we could rework Section 230 so that if an internet platform wanted Section 230 protection they would have to show that they have systems in place to filter out content that is deemed too dangerous - with "too dangerous" to be spelled out with some precision in the legislation changing Section 230.
Yeah, that's gonna work wonders. We only have prior restraints on speech when we want to censor really bad stuff.
So, they spell out in the legislation that endorsing violence and sedition are unlawful.
And then two years later the republicans are back in power and they define any online speech calling for protection of civil liberties (other than the 2nd amendment) as sedition and then selectively enforce it everywhere except 8kun, Breitbart and whatever Trump picks up to replace Twitter.
Good idea!
Section 230 already has some limitations on "bad stuff"; e.g. this section states, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute" and "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property."
Should we drop those restrictions? Should we add to them? Unless you are saying we should drop all such restrictions, then what we are talking about is where to draw the line about what kinds of things should be restricted as too socially damaging. As I said in the OP, " I'll admit, though, that it's a huge problem to come to a consensus on many things (not child sex trafficking, though, fortunately) about what constitutes "sufficiently socially damaging"." I think this is where your valid concern about turning Section 230 into a partisan football comes in. Adding to the list of things constrained by Section 230 could become a slippery partisan slope.
As you suggest, it could be that Republicans would respond to Democratic efforts to change to add some restrictions if the two sides can't come to a consensus about it. But it's not like the Republicans need the impetus of Democrats trying to make such changes to want to make changes to Section 230 themselves. For example, the cult leader of the Republican Party has repeatedly called for the elimination of Section 230 altogether and it is echoed by many of his followers.
About your comment, "We only have prior restraints on speech when we want to censor really bad stuff", I would note that most privately owned internet platforms already have more restraints - like many things written in their Terms of Service - that are more restrictive than those outlined in Section 230 as it now stands. Twitter threw Trump off their platform. As I said in a post here, I wouldn't be surprised if Reddit already had things in its Terms of Service that restrict speech that calls for violence.
Posts: 13,934
Threads: 1,261
Joined: May 2025
cbelt3 wrote:
Redditors and the mods are being very careful with this. I read that subreddit on occasion. Claiming collusion is going to be as hard as claiming that a roomful of cats work together to develop a nuclear powered spacecraft.
It's becoming clear that I shouldn't have used that Reddit subreddit to make my point. I should have used a purely completely hypothetical entity as an example. I thought using Reddit would make my point more tangible, but instead it is a distraction that gets in the way of what I was trying to express. Sorry about that.
I agree that in the case of that subreddit proving collusion probably would difficult. But if you have a group of posters talking to each other about buying those shares with the explicit purpose of manipulating the market against the big short sellers, then there might be some legal basis for a prosecutor to look into it.
Posts: 33,855
Threads: 2,463
Joined: Apr 2025
Reputation:
0
Ted King wrote:
[quote=cbelt3]
Redditors and the mods are being very careful with this. I read that subreddit on occasion. Claiming collusion is going to be as hard as claiming that a roomful of cats work together to develop a nuclear powered spacecraft.
It's becoming clear that I shouldn't have used that Reddit subreddit to make my point. I should have used a purely completely hypothetical entity as an example. I thought using Reddit would make my point more tangible, but instead it is a distraction that gets in the way of what I was trying to express. Sorry about that.
I agree that in the case of that subreddit proving collusion probably would difficult. But if you have a group of posters talking to each other about buying those shares with the explicit purpose of manipulating the market against the big short sellers, then there might be some legal basis for a prosecutor to look into it.
Ted, the problem with hypotheticals is that they seldom reflect the real world scenario. I do accept that the example you used was not ideal for 230 - it doesn't touch the main issue at all.
What's wrong with 230? This podcast between Nilay Patel - who argues for leaving 230 alone - and Mark Cuban, who explains how 230 is terrible and why - is worth listening to. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ma...0497957452
Posts: 13,934
Threads: 1,261
Joined: May 2025
sekker wrote:
I’ve dug into this a bit, there is nothing illegal about being enthusiastic about a stock and buying it and then telling others. In fact, this has historically been encouraged by everyone involved.
Hedge funds managers do it all the time too. In fact, although one fund has taken a big hit, there were MANY hedge funds involved who all talked about this (as they do to try to demonstrate the ‘value’ to short selling).
In this case, all the enthusiasts are doing is doubling down, while forcing the hedge funds to also double or 10x their risk.
There's an interesting Twitter thread by a securities law professor that delves into grounds for a possible SEC investigation into this:
https://twitter.com/JamesFTierney/status...0460561411
sekker wrote:
As for section 230, all that needs changing is to block algorithmic presentation of data by the platform to users. Just let it be chronicled according to user postings and preferences. If Facebook wants to then mess with how data is shown - they have clearly manipulated what users see, and they are now a publisher and have moved out of 230 jurisdiction.
That simple change would keep MRF board just fine while forcing moderation of algorithms, which is our key issue.
That sounds intriguing, but I'm not sure what ramifications that has on what speech would be allowed and not allowed. Could you expand on that.
Posts: 13,934
Threads: 1,261
Joined: May 2025
sekker wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=cbelt3]
Redditors and the mods are being very careful with this. I read that subreddit on occasion. Claiming collusion is going to be as hard as claiming that a roomful of cats work together to develop a nuclear powered spacecraft.
It's becoming clear that I shouldn't have used that Reddit subreddit to make my point. I should have used a purely completely hypothetical entity as an example. I thought using Reddit would make my point more tangible, but instead it is a distraction that gets in the way of what I was trying to express. Sorry about that.
I agree that in the case of that subreddit proving collusion probably would difficult. But if you have a group of posters talking to each other about buying those shares with the explicit purpose of manipulating the market against the big short sellers, then there might be some legal basis for a prosecutor to look into it.
Ted, the problem with hypotheticals is that they seldom reflect the real world scenario. I do accept that the example you used was not ideal for 230 - it doesn't touch the main issue at all.
What's wrong with 230? This podcast between Nilay Patel - who argues for leaving 230 alone - and Mark Cuban, who explains how 230 is terrible and why - is worth listening to. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ma...0497957452
I said in the OP that I was making the assumption - for the sake of argument, not assertion of fact - that there was illegal collusion in the subreddit. If there had been illegal collusion on the subreddit, then without Section 230 Reddit could have legal liability. That's the "main issue" I was concerned with, with respect to Reddit specifically. Are you thinking the "main issue" is something else?
The podcast is an hour long and seems to cover a lot of issues, can you direct me to what part of the podcast has to do with Section 230?
Posts: 9,996
Threads: 393
Joined: Apr 2022
Reputation:
0
Ted King wrote:
Section 230 already has some limitations on "bad stuff"; e.g. this section states, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute" and "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property."
...
About your comment, "We only have prior restraints on speech when we want to censor really bad stuff", I would note that most privately owned internet platforms already have more restraints - like many things written in their Terms of Service - that are more restrictive than those outlined in Section 230 as it now stands. Twitter threw Trump off their platform. As I said in a post here, I wouldn't be surprised if Reddit already had things in its Terms of Service that restrict speech that calls for violence.
Private terms of service are not equivalent to government-enforced censorship.
Read up with a very very basic primer on prior restraints:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution...-restraint
If you get through it, you'll see why they felt comfortable leaving the obscenity exception in section 230.
Posts: 13,934
Threads: 1,261
Joined: May 2025
Posts: 33,855
Threads: 2,463
Joined: Apr 2025
Reputation:
0
Ted King wrote:
[quote=sekker]
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=cbelt3]
Redditors and the mods are being very careful with this. I read that subreddit on occasion. Claiming collusion is going to be as hard as claiming that a roomful of cats work together to develop a nuclear powered spacecraft.
It's becoming clear that I shouldn't have used that Reddit subreddit to make my point. I should have used a purely completely hypothetical entity as an example. I thought using Reddit would make my point more tangible, but instead it is a distraction that gets in the way of what I was trying to express. Sorry about that.
I agree that in the case of that subreddit proving collusion probably would difficult. But if you have a group of posters talking to each other about buying those shares with the explicit purpose of manipulating the market against the big short sellers, then there might be some legal basis for a prosecutor to look into it.
Ted, the problem with hypotheticals is that they seldom reflect the real world scenario. I do accept that the example you used was not ideal for 230 - it doesn't touch the main issue at all.
What's wrong with 230? This podcast between Nilay Patel - who argues for leaving 230 alone - and Mark Cuban, who explains how 230 is terrible and why - is worth listening to. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ma...0497957452
I said in the OP that I was making the assumption - for the sake of argument, not assertion of fact - that there was illegal collusion in the subreddit. If there had been illegal collusion on the subreddit, then without Section 230 Reddit could have legal liability. That's the "main issue" I was concerned with, with respect to Reddit specifically. Are you thinking the "main issue" is something else?
The podcast is an hour long and seems to cover a lot of issues, can you direct me to what part of the podcast has to do with Section 230?
Apologies, I should have noted this was an interview covering many topics. Just fast-forward to the 230 section. I tried to find a form of a table of contents, I believe the 230 is more than halfway.
Posts: 33,855
Threads: 2,463
Joined: Apr 2025
Reputation:
0
Ted King wrote:
[quote=sekker]
I’ve dug into this a bit, there is nothing illegal about being enthusiastic about a stock and buying it and then telling others. In fact, this has historically been encouraged by everyone involved.
Hedge funds managers do it all the time too. In fact, although one fund has taken a big hit, there were MANY hedge funds involved who all talked about this (as they do to try to demonstrate the ‘value’ to short selling).
In this case, all the enthusiasts are doing is doubling down, while forcing the hedge funds to also double or 10x their risk.
There's an interesting Twitter thread by a securities law professor that delves into grounds for a possible SEC investigation into this:
https://twitter.com/JamesFTierney/status...0460561411
sekker wrote:
As for section 230, all that needs changing is to block algorithmic presentation of data by the platform to users. Just let it be chronicled according to user postings and preferences. If Facebook wants to then mess with how data is shown - they have clearly manipulated what users see, and they are now a publisher and have moved out of 230 jurisdiction.
That simple change would keep MRF board just fine while forcing moderation of algorithms, which is our key issue.
That sounds intriguing, but I'm not sure what ramifications that has on what speech would be allowed and not allowed. Could you expand on that.
The whole point is that it is the automatic and algorithmic amplification of selected speech that is the point. The US has ALWAYs had conspiracy theorists and zealots; but there is a consequence of publishers amplifying those voices for example. Under section 230, platforms can selectively amplify without the same consequences.
Posts: 54,603
Threads: 1,937
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
1
An article with a graphic representation of the growth of that subreddit:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolog...-gamestop/
|
