Considering that 'user generated content' is just a fancy term for the free labor of users that big content media sites appropriate to sell ads and keep the revenue for themselves, I'm not 100% certain that I would be terribly sad about the loss of Section 230 protections.
In other words, if the sites are going to profit off their users, they are clearly in a position of ownership of the content. They may not create it, but they sell it, as if they own it. Maybe they need to be reminded that they can't appropriate and profit off things they didn't create and then disclaim any responsibility for it.
Do the YC companies pay for placement alongside relevant content and get preferential visibility over non-paying content? If so, then no, HN doesn't get a pass.
It may be difficult to define a line, but I think a line needs to be drawn.
When "platforms" editorialize content for the purposes of manipulating user behaviour, rather than merely to act in users' interests in helping them find what they want, then I'm in favour of them losing protection.
HN does the latter, so I think it'd be appropriate for HN to keep its protection.
If you read the amicus briefs you will see that once you draw the line, you open the door for lawsuits to establish whether the line has been crossed in each case, with the costly discovery phase, instead of a blanket "cannot sue" now. Goodbye bootstrapped startups with user generated content or your favorite internet forum/mailing list after that.
Yes, it's funny how a huge amount of listed companies in the US have lawsuits against them because their stocks have gone down. Lawyers looking for clients who lost some money and then they sue. The lawyer earns money no matter what, and if they win then they get a big payout.
User Content Transmitted Through the Site: With respect to the content or other materials you upload through the Site or share with other users or recipients (collectively, “User Content”), you represent and warrant that you own all right, title and interest in and to such User Content, including, without limitation, all copyrights and rights of publicity contained therein. By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed. However, please review the Applications Privacy Policy located at https://www.ycombinator.com/apply/privacy, for more information on how we treat information included in applications submitted to us.
That's a bad take, they provide a service and a platform, that's allowed to make a profit. The big deal about 230 getting repealed is that it's a lawyer's wet dream to sue everyone and -win- over any little thing said on the internet. Repealing it basically eliminates free speech on the internet unless you put up your own host, and even then your ISP could get sued for allowing even that. It's yet another way the elite can suppress the voice of the commons on the internet. I can't believe anyone on hackernews would support that.
230 in it's entirety isn't really in danger here. Your ISP is almost definitely still protected regardless of this case. It seems that content recommendation algorithms are the focus and it might stretch to some kinds of search ranking. IMO the internet would be fine without recommendations on YouTube, but I would be afraid to lose things like reddit/stack overflow/hackernews/google that have a kind of content ranking.
It is disturbing seeing the downright negative legal literacy growth in understanding Section 230 over the years of propaganda efforts. Does that speak of a dark future of dystopian legislation via propaganda campaigns to convince people the law already works according to an utterly fictional standard?
I think the Internet stopped being good a while ago but it doesn’t have much to do with section 230 it has more to do with private companies censoring things they don’t like.
The DMCA was carefully crafted to modify copyright liabilities in a way that ensured the Internet would centralize. I guess the hope now is that (by removing 230) they can put anyone that lets individuals publish stuff out of business.
Then, I guess, the intention is that the Internet will stay centralized, and we'll all just watch Disney+ on our DRM-only displays or whatever?
(I don't see the above tactics actually working, though I think they should either eliminate all of the DMCA or none of it. Otherwise, this is just corrupt courts trying to appoint economic winners and losers.)
Legal Eagle is a lawyer on YouTube who posts a lot of videos. The title echos his video title, and I guess this person just doesn’t have a lot of respect for him (he’s incredibly liberal for example, I guess that could play an affect? Biases etc. )
Legal eagle plays for video clicks rather than correct legal understanding. Never admits he was wrong, and has published several videos which were ridiculously incorrect. He misleads the general public at large by pretending to give accurate legal opinions.
I would argue that recommender systems that are tuned to drive profits through engagement are exactly what is wrong with today's internet. I don't have a strong opinion of whether they should be protected by Section 230, but nerfing those systems will almost surely make things better, not worse.
Nerf recommender systems and improve search quality. Make algorithms simple enough for people to understand ie "People frequently watched this video after this one", "People who like this video also like this", "This video is popular today for people who also like ____".
Ultimately, this case is really, really good. It has terrorism in it thus national security concerns. The law in question is fundamental to the success of the tech companies, so any change to it's interpretation shakes the foundations of an entire industry.
If the interpretation is significant, it could force congress to take the question on how to change the tech industry more seriously like after the right to abortion was struck down. That would be incredibly significant. The effects of the change would likely be in force by the 2024 elections, which the effectiveness of the social media arm of the presidential campaigns has been a decider in every election since 2008 (except 2012 since it wasn't competitive).
This case could set the course of history for the next 2 years at least
Where do you set the line dividing search ranking and algorithmic recommendation? It seems simple but there's actually a lot of recommendation that goes into preventing malicious content from using SEO techniques to game the rankings.
Google results are pretty bad nowadays but they could be much worse.
I don’t see this as bad. Platforms invest on what impacts their pockets, so today they do restrict/boost what you see on the basis on making you engage more and click on ads more. If they are liable for the content they make available to you they might spend some more real money on moderation.
We have all seen what the effects of those platforms, and the smart an evil use of their rec engines, were around the world.
We didn’t have this effect pre recommendation engines because the dark content would stay hidden and you had to search for it, while today it is brought to you on a algorithm silver plate by youtube, facebook and tiktok. As long as you engage with the platform, whatever makes you happy/angry mate!
The safe harbor of 230 was to protect a company from doing good faith moderation.
Without 230, it goes to "you are responsible for everything if you moderate anything" or "you are responsible for nothing nothing if you moderate nothing" options for a provider.
Google and Facebook would likely go to "nothing is moderated, no recommendations and here is a firehose of crap" since there is no way for them to moderate everything and they don't want to be responsible for anything.
In a no safe harbor for good faith moderation, the only sites with user generated content (UGC) that would survive are the ones where they don't moderate anything - 4chan and the like.
While that is not a future that I would like, I suspect that I could get some popcorn watching the sites that try to maintain an idealogical pure stance dealing with UGC that isn't something they want to host but not wanting to take responsibility for all of the extreme potions that they do host.
My crystal ball says that if 230 was stuck down, the remains of web2 (including all social media and blog comments) would fracture to small, invite only communities where moderation is unnecessary (e.g. got a 15 person slack that is unmoderated because everyone is an adult... while the 1000 person locale based community slack that occasionally deletes and bans spammers would close). The crystal ball says that TikTok and Twitter would try to comply by turning off their recommendation algorithms and "report" functionality, and would then promptly collapse as Sturgeon's law makes them unusable.
33 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 70.2 ms ] threadIn other words, if the sites are going to profit off their users, they are clearly in a position of ownership of the content. They may not create it, but they sell it, as if they own it. Maybe they need to be reminded that they can't appropriate and profit off things they didn't create and then disclaim any responsibility for it.
YC runs Hacker News and invests its resources into promotion of YC companies' job ads, hoping to increase return on its investment.
Wikipedia pays high salaries to its executives, the money that it derives from its user's donations.
Strip them all of Section 230 protection?
When "platforms" editorialize content for the purposes of manipulating user behaviour, rather than merely to act in users' interests in helping them find what they want, then I'm in favour of them losing protection.
HN does the latter, so I think it'd be appropriate for HN to keep its protection.
https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/
1 The Attention Economy: Where the Customer Becomes the Product – https://journal.businesstoday.org/bt-online/2021/the-attenti...
2 Forget Data. Free Labor Is Facebook’s Lifeblood – https://mashable.com/article/free-labor-facebook-profits
3 Williams, James. 2018. Stand Out of Our Light: Freedom and Resistance in the Attention Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4 The Scientists Who Make Apps Addictive – https://web.archive.org/web/20210416052902/https://www.econo...
5 A Call To Minimize Distraction – http://www.minimizedistraction.com/
6 Slow Tech – https://vimeo.com/240721308, transcript at https://www.interaxiongroup.org/sites/default/files/media/pd...
7 Ethics of the Attention Economy: The Problem of Social Media Addiction – https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2020.32
8 Odell, J. (2019). How to do nothing: Resisting the attention economy. Melville House.
Then, I guess, the intention is that the Internet will stay centralized, and we'll all just watch Disney+ on our DRM-only displays or whatever?
(I don't see the above tactics actually working, though I think they should either eliminate all of the DMCA or none of it. Otherwise, this is just corrupt courts trying to appoint economic winners and losers.)
I'm curious what made you say this
Ultimately, this case is really, really good. It has terrorism in it thus national security concerns. The law in question is fundamental to the success of the tech companies, so any change to it's interpretation shakes the foundations of an entire industry.
If the interpretation is significant, it could force congress to take the question on how to change the tech industry more seriously like after the right to abortion was struck down. That would be incredibly significant. The effects of the change would likely be in force by the 2024 elections, which the effectiveness of the social media arm of the presidential campaigns has been a decider in every election since 2008 (except 2012 since it wasn't competitive).
This case could set the course of history for the next 2 years at least
We have all seen what the effects of those platforms, and the smart an evil use of their rec engines, were around the world.
We didn’t have this effect pre recommendation engines because the dark content would stay hidden and you had to search for it, while today it is brought to you on a algorithm silver plate by youtube, facebook and tiktok. As long as you engage with the platform, whatever makes you happy/angry mate!
And note that the only people who can comply with the requirements in a post Section 230 world are gonna be Google and Facebook.
Without 230, it goes to "you are responsible for everything if you moderate anything" or "you are responsible for nothing nothing if you moderate nothing" options for a provider.
Google and Facebook would likely go to "nothing is moderated, no recommendations and here is a firehose of crap" since there is no way for them to moderate everything and they don't want to be responsible for anything.
In a no safe harbor for good faith moderation, the only sites with user generated content (UGC) that would survive are the ones where they don't moderate anything - 4chan and the like.
While that is not a future that I would like, I suspect that I could get some popcorn watching the sites that try to maintain an idealogical pure stance dealing with UGC that isn't something they want to host but not wanting to take responsibility for all of the extreme potions that they do host.
My crystal ball says that if 230 was stuck down, the remains of web2 (including all social media and blog comments) would fracture to small, invite only communities where moderation is unnecessary (e.g. got a 15 person slack that is unmoderated because everyone is an adult... while the 1000 person locale based community slack that occasionally deletes and bans spammers would close). The crystal ball says that TikTok and Twitter would try to comply by turning off their recommendation algorithms and "report" functionality, and would then promptly collapse as Sturgeon's law makes them unusable.