nsfmc’s avatarnsfmc’s Twitter Archive—№ 8,496

  1. …in reply to @MatchuSaysHi
    MatchuSaysHi up until s230 (see cubby v compuserve, s. oakmont v prodigy) _platforms_ were responsible for the content their users posted but _only_ if they moderated it. s230 shifted the blame from providers onto their users while _incentivizing 'good faith' moderation_.
    On twitter.com Twitter logo nsfmc’s avatar 2021 Jan 11 Mood 0
    1. …in reply to @nsfmc
      MatchuSaysHi the big bummer is that mostly platforms use s230 as a way to avoid moderating at all, but... who do you go after? right now we go after users which is whack a mole, but mods don't want to take on liability, nor do platforms, or their hosts, and especially not the telcos.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo nsfmc’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite 2021 Jan 11 Mood -3 🙁
      1. …in reply to @nsfmc
        MatchuSaysHi the problem that precipitates s230 in any case is that congress felt that regulating the 'dumb pipe' felt a lot like a 1a issue (is a telco, for instance, a global speech platform? a bbs? a phpbb?)
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo nsfmc’s avatar 2021 Jan 11 Mood 0
        1. …in reply to @nsfmc
          MatchuSaysHi 230 is all about shifting liability to end users in a way that doesn't taste like violating the 1a while also allowing everyone up the chain to opt into arbitrary moderation without really needing to provide all that much in terms of justification.
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo nsfmc’s avatar 2021 Jan 11 Mood 0
          1. …in reply to @nsfmc
            MatchuSaysHi i guess what's hard about 2) is that by shifting the liability up to the top, it's super easy to leave something like a phpbb install as something "only fb can afford" instead of "are you sure you want to deal with all the comment spam on your phpbb" (oh yeah, i'll turn 'em off)
            Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo nsfmc’s avatar 2021 Jan 11 Mood +6 🙂
            1. …in reply to @nsfmc
              MatchuSaysHi i only say this all because it's not a bad instinct to say "burn it all down" but the means of enabling something like 2) are super problematic for companies like isps and telcos who would rather not be part of this kind of discussion _at all_ esp if they 'just lay the pipe'
              Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo nsfmc’s avatar 2021 Jan 11 Mood +6 🙂
              1. …in reply to @nsfmc
                MatchuSaysHi i dunno, veryeli , i'm out of my element here, tell me why i'm being stupid about this. i find something like a s230 repeal super problematic because it would make 'hosting content' incredibly fraught and expensive for end-users depending on who ends up holding the bag.
                Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo nsfmc’s avatar 2021 Jan 11 Mood +3 🙂