d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 5,859
Joined: Jul 12 2018
Gold: 1,645.70
Jan 20 2023 10:18pm
What are your guys thoughts on this? It seems horrible but I also feel like it won't make it through supreme court. It's trying to make moderators and users online legally responsible for content they approve or promote.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/20/tech/meta-microsoft-google-supreme-court-tech-algorithms/index.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/10h2fz7/reddits_defense_of_section_230_to_the_supreme/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/supreme-court-allows-reddit-mods-to-anonymously-defend-section-230/
Member
Posts: 46,990
Joined: Sep 5 2016
Gold: 100.00
Jan 21 2023 02:32am
platform vrs publisher ?
Member
Posts: 9,123
Joined: May 11 2009
Gold: 5.01
Jan 21 2023 07:09am
I'll have to read it more. Does existing section 230 indirectly protect the platform from publishing threatening, defamatory, dangerous content if done so by a community moderator? Seems like a shitty loophole for a company to exploit TBH if looking at it from the negative lens.

Generally sites and platforms should be left alone as they are privately created virtual spaces, but the ISP networking needs to be unmolested. A site should still be liable for what is being provided on their domain and not shielded by unpaid moderator nonsense if that's what is going on.
Member
Posts: 5,859
Joined: Jul 12 2018
Gold: 1,645.70
Jan 21 2023 12:33pm
Quote (RedFromWinter @ Jan 21 2023 05:09am)
I'll have to read it more. Does existing section 230 indirectly protect the platform from publishing threatening, defamatory, dangerous content if done so by a community moderator? Seems like a shitty loophole for a company to exploit TBH if looking at it from the negative lens.

Generally sites and platforms should be left alone as they are privately created virtual spaces, but the ISP networking needs to be unmolested. A site should still be liable for what is being provided on their domain and not shielded by unpaid moderator nonsense if that's what is going on.


it protects websites from legal liability due to what third parties post. changing it would negatively impact freedom of speech online, especially for large social media sites or forums.

the changes being made look to possibly be impacting people who moderate or help refer content on the sites as well, so it doesnt even seem to be social media vs this law but rather anyone liking/downvoting/upvoting it as well, and the volunteer moderators for things like reddit and i would imagine facebook pages.
Member
Posts: 33,922
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Jan 21 2023 12:50pm
This issue is hard to approach because the ideal situation is where all the censorship and regulation of debate on these platforms is transparent - but companies like these operate within a black box. I don't see any solutions better than the current state. Maybe more idealogical diversity among companies, but I don't think that will ever happen.
Member
Posts: 66,666
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
Jan 21 2023 01:20pm
Website.com is 100% responsible of what it is published on website.com.
PS: Reddit moderation is horrible.
Member
Posts: 49,893
Joined: Jun 19 2006
Gold: 3.88
Jan 21 2023 02:00pm
I oppose all censorship.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Add Reply New Topic New Poll