The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Section 230 - Overly Broad?
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Recently, I've been thinking about the problem of Section 230 of the CDA. Personally, I feel that it, as applied, is overly broad, allowing bad actors to get away with conduct that they wouldn't be able to in meatspace.
So, first - what is Section 230? Section 230 is one of the few remaining parts of the Communications Decency Act on the books, and it deals with liability on the part of an "interactive service provider". Put simply, it says that a "service provider" cannot be held liable for the conduct of a user of their service. The EFF supports this measure.
Now, at first glance, it sounds great. And for common carriers, it is. Common carriers, who provide service to all, do need legal shelter from the conduct of their end users - after all, it's not fair to sue Verizon because you got taken by a phone-based scam. The problem come from the fact that Section 230 extends to any "interactive service provider". What this means is that as long as the provider can show that the content was provided from some other source, they're off the hook. To say that this is an environment ripe for abuse is...an understatement.
To give a good example, let's say that someone creates a website to allow people to anonymously accuse others and allows any accusation made to stand, regardless of the validity of that accusation. One of the accusations started there takes hold, and does damage to the accused. You would think that the website operator would be liable for the accusation under the doctrine of reckless malice. And if we were dealing with a physical publication, they would most likely be liable. But since this is a website, the operator states that he never touched the posting of the accusation, all he did was provide a service that was abused by the user, and as such, he is not liable. Never mind that he was promoting the website as a means of accusing others. And if you think this is a fictional example - think again.
Of course, any talk of reducing the Section 230 sphere of influence always raises cries that doing so would leave websites legally liable. To this, I say two things:
So, first - what is Section 230? Section 230 is one of the few remaining parts of the Communications Decency Act on the books, and it deals with liability on the part of an "interactive service provider". Put simply, it says that a "service provider" cannot be held liable for the conduct of a user of their service. The EFF supports this measure.
Now, at first glance, it sounds great. And for common carriers, it is. Common carriers, who provide service to all, do need legal shelter from the conduct of their end users - after all, it's not fair to sue Verizon because you got taken by a phone-based scam. The problem come from the fact that Section 230 extends to any "interactive service provider". What this means is that as long as the provider can show that the content was provided from some other source, they're off the hook. To say that this is an environment ripe for abuse is...an understatement.
To give a good example, let's say that someone creates a website to allow people to anonymously accuse others and allows any accusation made to stand, regardless of the validity of that accusation. One of the accusations started there takes hold, and does damage to the accused. You would think that the website operator would be liable for the accusation under the doctrine of reckless malice. And if we were dealing with a physical publication, they would most likely be liable. But since this is a website, the operator states that he never touched the posting of the accusation, all he did was provide a service that was abused by the user, and as such, he is not liable. Never mind that he was promoting the website as a means of accusing others. And if you think this is a fictional example - think again.
Of course, any talk of reducing the Section 230 sphere of influence always raises cries that doing so would leave websites legally liable. To this, I say two things:
- No, it wont. For the most part, many of the websites would be protected under other laws. For instance, bloggers would find themselves protected by laws covering journalists.
- And even if it does, that's not a bad thing. Exposure to defamation liability is not a bad thing, as it would make website owners culpable for their conduct. This in turn would force them to keep their users in check.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
0
Posts
pleasepaypreacher.net
I agree whole heartedly, but until that law comes into being my Thinatos is a jerk website shall remain.
pleasepaypreacher.net
What bothers me is that if you look at the examples in the briefs that the EFF lists, you can see the dangers of Section 230, but yet the EFF supports it openheartedly.
This is my biggest reason why I don't support the EFF.
It seems similar to laws that curb speech that incites violence -- if you explicitly incite violence, you're held liable. It seems similar then that we might consider a site that explicitly incites libel to be similarly liable. And I think it's a pretty obvious difference between a site that explicitly promotes libel and one that merely contains libel. If the stated purpose of the site is to disparage individuals, and there's no kind of regulation of claims (beacuse, obviously, how could you regulate that kind of volume?), then it seems perfectly reasonable and with precedent to hold such sites accountable.
Besides, if we're doing it for piracy, why not do it for libel?
The thing is that the difference between being liable and not can literally be whether or not you're operating online. For instance, newspapers would never print a clearly defamatory letter to the editor because they could be held liable. But if it's online, then they're protected under Section 230 if they do so. The result is that website operators can operate recklessly, because they know they won't face any sanctions. While I do acknowledge that ISPs do need this protection because they're common carriers, extending such protections across the board is dangerous, and shoud seriously be reviewed.
And no, the Internet is not so special that it needs these rules to survive. I've always found that argument to be laughable.
The one thing that ticks me off the most about all this is how all the supporters say "without Section 230, websites would be afraid to innovate." To me, this is much like saying "companies need to be deregulated or they'll die." What is the difference between me having to obey certain laws because I'm running a brick and mortar property or obeying because I run an online website? Is there truly a difference?
Because if there is, I'd love for someone to explain it to me.
That's actually pretty funny, because a lot of people say that, and they're generally people who have no problem advocating all kinds of regulation for Meatspace businesses.
Yeah, I've noticed the hypocrisy. Somehow, I don't think people are going to stop innovating because they might have to deal with the law. In fact, it might get someof these idiots actually READING it.
So, what you're saying is that defamation is okay as long as you get to reply to it?
Well, and as shitty as it is to grope someone, is it really an acceptable breach of privacy to make that known to the world? Granted, most sex offender laws these days involve such a breach of privacy on the part of the offender, but that doesn't make them particularly justifiable or effective.
Uh
yes.
when you do something wrong, you don't have a right to make other people never mention it.
Public shaming, and getting the idea out there that this isn't okay at all, is important and effective. Cops don't give a shit about this kind of thing unless its sustained and personal, and even then you have to fit the profile of an acceptable victim before you're likely to get justice of any kind. If you go to that blog (hollaback NYC), you'll note that incidences of overreaction to relatively normal interactions are very rare. There are also, obviously enough, no names mentioned. And I rather doubt that the (mostly) men photogrpahed on that site really give a crap - and they'd have a right to demand removal of pictures if falsley accused, as well as the right to set up their own site. Far as I can tell, it functions more effectively as a support group and conciousness raiser than some get teh menz and beat zem thing.
Actually, they wouldn't. Which is the problem with Section 230. Even if the posting is out and out false, there's no legal reason that would force removal, since it was posted by a user. And while the falsely accused could try to sue said user, they would have a problem trying to find a point to start at. And this applies to any website that allows user submission - there would be no way to compel removal of damaging material. All because of an overly broad statute.
I didn't say legal right, but they're still free to make their case to the site owner. Which I agree is a problem, but hardly one restricted to your country. I get the feeling that even if your section 230 disappeared they'd have trouble getting a site owner to do anything they didn't want to.
If Section 230 was gone, and the site owner was in the US, they can sue for defamation. Which could end up with them getting the website.
Only if they can prove that it actually caused them any harm. I have the right to stand on a corner and point at people whilst calling them douches and there isn't a slander law that would protect them/stop me. Some of these sites can be construed along the same lines given the incredibly small traffic they receive.
That was because the admins actually got in on the act - they posted the offending material as well. Which, in retrospect, shows how bad they are at the law.
I missed this earlier, but as moniker said, defamation is a long way from calling someone out for something they did, and calling someone on something they didn't do has to be proved to have actually mattered a damn in practical terms. Your question is meaningless until you figure out what defamation is.
One of them is denying that - far as I know, Ciolli's main piece of stupid was ignoring requests to knock it off and posting same, which isn't on the same level as, say, the guy who was stalking one of the defendants in her gym.
I'm pretty sure that ISPs aren't common carriers, at least in the capacity of being ISPs, as I've heard this one a lot. I think the reason for this is that the internet operates on a "best effort" principle, where as common carrier ISPs would have more responsibility to ensure reliability in transmissions beyond that. For example, dropping packets is fairly common, and is sometimes done intentionally by routers with good reason.
As for Section 230, I could see avenues of abuse both with it in place and if there was nothing like it in the books. Potentially holding every provider responsible for the conduct of their users could be disastrous and have a massive chilling effect on practical free speech on the internet. Like has been abused with DMCA takedowns, spurious lawsuits or legal threats could be launched to thwart opponents in the medium. These threats could hold little to no chance of success if brought to court, but the cost of dealing with them and the threat of a bad verdict could easily convince providers not to protect themselves or their users.
On the other hand, you could have situations where sites are simply used as an engine of defamation, of which your examples present some gray area.
A takedown procedure similar to the one in the DMCA might be the best, even though that can be abused at least minimally. At least that would provide both parties with an opportunity to assert their position and send it to court between them if necessary.
Well my problem with the site is the ability for false accusations to be leveled against innocent parties. Even if you can demand they remove them, how do you prove it was false? Would the site admins believe a potential groper over a gropee?
Having recently been the victim of gossip in a workplace enviroment the potential for abuse is ripe with sites of this type, with or without 230 protection.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah, you're right. I mean, instinctively, I kind of just want to say "oh, well they're douchebags, so who cares," but I'm generally wary of invasions of privacy, so I figured I'd just throw that out there.
Craigslist uses Section 230 as shield for conduct its newspaper brethren could never get away with.
There is no difference in what Craigslist does in comparison to traditional classified ads. The only difference is that they're online. But because of that, they become an "online service provider" and can claim that they have Section 230 protection. This is what I have a problem with.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
What is it that the kids say about the record and movie industry? Oh, that's right - the government isn't here to guarantee your business model. If Craigslist can't meet the legal obligations that their business model entails, then they shouldn't be given a "get out of regulations free" card.
And yet the ad would be up for an indeterminable amount of time. Put enough of those ads up, and you get a chilling effect - which is why the FHA covers such ads. If you disagree with the logic of the FHA, then argue against it.
Well, it's not just the medium. The setup of Craigslist is akin to somebody posting a giant cork board and letting people tack up notices for free cats, guitar lessons, and roommate wanted sheets with the phone number written vertically to be torn off. There would also be a note on every sheet that said the ad will be taken down if a few people complain for any reason. There's also the whole thing about a website being able to remove a posting without human intervention.
Wait, didn't the judge rule that Craigslist did meet their legal obligations? o_O
Yet there hasn't been any noted chilling effect. Could it possibly be that having a system that lets users quickly get rid of racist ads works incredibly well? That so few users actually see blatantly racist ads there isn't a problem?
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Look, AH, the reason why the rules for websites and the rules for print media are different is because websites and print media are fundamentally different forms of communication. If you just don't get that, I don't know what to tell you. Should Penny Arcade be liable when Datarape posts a rape threat on this forum? Should YouTube be dismantled if someone posts a kiddy porn video, even if that video is taken down as soon as an adminstrator sees it, just because it was up for some length of time?
edit: mind you, I'm all for requiring the owners of interactive services to divulge IP records, etc. of people who post illegal material when presented with a warrant, but I'm pretty sure that's already on the books.
The judge ruled that they didn't have to follow the FHA because they could claim that they were an "online service provider". I guess you could say that they "met" their legal obligations in a "we have a get out of regulations free card" sort of way, which is the point that I was making.
So, we have to wait for a problem to happen? The problem isn't just "blatantly racist" ads, but the quietly subversively racist ones. Redlining was in some cases carried out blatantly, but in many other cases was something done very quietly. This is why the FHA was created, and why it reads the way it does.
Ah, did you even read some of the initial posts that I made in this thread? Yes, I understand and agree that online media is different, and does require protection. But Section 230 is overly broad - that is, it allows exemptions that are very much problematic. The Craigslist issue highlights this - if Craigslist was operating in the same manner in any other medium, they would fall under the scrutiny of certain laws - but because they operate online, they get a free pass. That's the problem.
Craigslist, by operating online, is not operating in the same manner as any other medium. This is true of any online service that is analogous to a traditional service. Craigslist takes ads from anywhere in the country and places them on the site instantly. A newspaper takes ads from a comparatively very small area and prints out these ads once a day. One of these services is built to allow for human checking before the advertisements go up, the other cannot do this and so instead allows for the advertisements to be reported as violating and taken down after the fact. I'm not seeing how pretending Craigslist is just like a newspaper furthers your argument: it's not just like newspaper classifieds, even if their ad copy might suggest it.
Make sure to read the article you link to. The complaint here was that Roommates.com itself asked for users gender and sexual orientation, which is of course not covered under 230 because it's not some other user but rather the site itself that's violating the FHA.
Excuse me I have to go scrub myself off now.
Yes, getting rid of Section 230 would almost certainly kill 4chan dead. Do we list this in the "pros" or "cons"?
So, the only major difference that you can cite is scope? Frankly, that's a pretty damn weak argument. We require any business to follow EEO guidelines, from the largest multinational to the smallest mom & pop shop. Scope does not make Craigslist different. (By the way, most modern newspapers do provide their classifieds online now, too.)
Again, the simple point is that if these regulations make the Craigslist business model untenable, then I want to hear arguments as to why the regulations are wrong, not why Craigslist deserves an exemption.
As much as I loathe 4chan, it is a necessary evil.