Gamestop, Reddit and Section 230

[Ted King]

If I understand it correctly, a group of people in the Reddit community "r/wallstreetbets", encouraged each other to buy GameStop stocks and it seems the intention of many of them was to trip up the short selling of the stocks by large funds. For the sake of argument - that is for the sake of the point I want to make - let's assume that their actions are a form of collusion that is illegal manipulation of the market. [Even if it is, I don't think most of the participants had any idea it might be illegal and intention often plays a big role in the law.] If it is illegal, it is fortunate for Reddit as an internet platform that they have Section 230 protection from being found to be a partner in the illegal collusion.

There is a lot of talk now about it being time to modify Section 230 to make platforms more liable for the contents found on their platforms. It don't think it is wise to completely do away with Section 230, but I would like to see that platforms - some of them making mucho-billions of dollars - do moderation where some compelling social needs supersede their protections against objectionable content.

I don't want to snuff out platforms like Reddit, though, that rely on volunteer moderators. I wouldn't want to make them liable for what was said by the community of users on r/wallstreetbets. But there are some social needs - like not allowing child sex traffickers - where they have to muster the resources to filter out socially damaging things. 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'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. Platforms would be free to operate without Section 230 protections, but that would leave them more at the mercy of debilitating lawsuits about content.

What, if any, modifications do you think should be made to Section 230 protections?

[GGD]

Just like this forum, Reddit has TOS and Rules, and can and should deal with users who violate them. Not sure that any laws need to change to do this.

https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy

Rule 7

Keep it legal, and avoid posting illegal content or soliciting or facilitating illegal or prohibited transactions.

https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-...er-15-2020

Use the Services to violate applicable law or infringe any person’s or entity's intellectual property rights or any other proprietary rights.

[Ted King]

GGD wrote:
Just like this forum, Reddit has TOS and Rules, and can and should deal with users who violate them. Not sure that any laws need to change to do this.

https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy

Rule 7

Keep it legal, and avoid posting illegal content or soliciting or facilitating illegal or prohibited transactions.

https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-...er-15-2020

Use the Services to violate applicable law or infringe any person’s or entity's intellectual property rights or any other proprietary rights.

I wasn't saying that Reddit was deficient in its moderating of their communities, I was using Reddit as a concrete example of how I think we should find a balance between not giving platforms - in general - any protections at all about content from their users (which could very well kill most of them off) and giving them protection even if they allow things that are likely to cause great social harm. I imagine Reddit would do fine under a new Section 230 regimen where platforms would be required to show that they have enough moderation to filter out legally defined areas of restrictions to qualify for 230 protection. They may very well meet the criteria without making any changes, but outfits like Parlor (as it used to be anyway) might not qualify for protection.

[Speedy]

I wouldn’t mess with Section 230 at all.

[Sarcany]

Ted King wrote:
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!

[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.

There are weird people there. And most of them lose lots of money at it.

What really happening is the Hedge fund short selling scam is coming out in the open. And THAT is the story that needs to be out there. That a hedge fund tried to deliberately bankrupt GameStop by taking short positions using 110% of their stock. That’s right... fake stock was used.

And the funds tried to do the same thing to AMC.

And this collective of people took action with their own money.

[Carnos Jax]

cbelt3 wrote: ...claiming that a roomful of cats work together to develop a nuclear powered spacecraft...

miley-laughing001:

[RgrF]

And the funds tried to do the same thing to AMC.

Turns out AMC's majority owner is a Chinese billionaire who apparently found a way to counter the Wall Street vultures.

[macphanatic]

And the Reddit crew bankrupted a hedge fund at least once, forcing them to borrow and possibly be bankrupted again.

[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.

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.