Post

Mike Masnick
@masnick.com

I've seen this question come up a few times, and some of it is answered in this post from a few years ago, but let me try to answer @opinionhaver.bsky.social's question directly since he asks this every time 230 comes up. www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/h...

techdirt.comHello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency ActHello! Someone has referred you to this post because you’ve said something quite wrong about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I apologize if it feels a bit cold and rude to resp…
William B. Fuckley@opinionhaver.bsky.social

genuine question, what is the argument against doing this in terms of what would actually happen (not the legal technicalities, the actual real world impacts), and why it would be worse than what is happening right now?

Mike Masnick
@masnick.com

The real issue is you NEED to understand how 230 and the First Amendment intersect. This is a key thing that many people get wrong. The underlying issue is that MOST THINGS that companies would get sued over hosting/promoting/etc are all protected by 1A. Now, that leads some to say...

Mike Masnick
@masnick.com

"Well, then, we really don't need 230 since 1A will protect." But that's wrong, as @ericgoldman.bsky.social neatly lays out in this paper. 230 provides a procedural benefit to get rid of *frivolous* cases *that would lose* but does so much earlier. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

papers.ssrn.comWhy Section 230 Is Better Than the First Amendment47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”) immunizes Internet services from liability for third-party content. This immunity acts as a crucial legal foundation for the mod
Mike Masnick
@masnick.com

The *practical* difference, especially for smaller entities, is MASSIVE. Basically it will get a case tossed out for ~$100k rather than over $2mil. For a massive multi-billion company (Meta, Google, etc) with buildings full of lawyers, the difference is minimal.

Mike Masnick
@masnick.com

Yes, they will have to pay a little bit more, but rounding error levels. For a smaller entity, the difference is existential. And that means that smaller entities will have terrible options: (1) shut down (2) cave to basically any legal threats (3) stop allowing users to communicate or...

17 reposts145 likes

Mike Masnick
@masnick.com

(4) basically stop moderating altogether. Because (and again, this is important) under 1A precedent, for a distributor to be liable, it has to have *actual knowledge* of *violating* content. And the best way to not get actual knowledge is to stop looking/stop moderating.

Blake C. Stacey
@blakestacey.myatproto.social

Without 230, the fact that Wikipedia takes steps to remove vandalism, spam, attack pages, etc., would make the Foundation which owns and operates the site legally liable for any edit to Wikipedia that anybody wants to sue over.

R. David Nett
@davidnett.bsky.social

In the early oughts I was at a small UGC start-up that did exactly this. There was such relief around small UGC enables sites (including articles with comments) when 230 arrived & we could afford to moderate w/o fear.

Mike Masnick
@masnick.com

So, the practical results: a marginally higher legal bill for big companies, but at rounding error levels, and likely LESS INCENTIVE to moderate to avoid actual knowledge. But, the BIG loss is for smaller entities, who will now either shut down, be easily pushed around by legal threats, or...

Mike Masnick
@masnick.com

Every day someone who hasn't thought about this issue at all makes this suggestion and I ask them if they can answer all the challenges raised by actual experts who point out the problems with that solution. And every day there remain no answers. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

papers.ssrn.comRegulating Internet Services by SizeIn their zeal to curb Big Tech, regulators are crafting legislative reforms that make distinctions between Internet services based on size. A crucial Internet l
Mike Masnick
@masnick.com

... massively limit person to person communication and content. End result: Meta/Google get MORE POWERFUL with LESS INCENTIVE to moderate. Every small competitor is massively limited or gone. I think that would suck. @opinionhaver.bsky.social may have a different opinion.

Eeeek!
@aaaac.bsky.social

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. But the censorship mechanism without section 230 is expensive lawsuits, which would allow the government or private actors to sue people hosting speech online over that speech, which effectually would reduce the ability of that speech to be online?

Joshua Sharp
@joshuasharp.bsky.social

Question: wouldn't eliminating 230 also make the platforms liable for any damages for content that is outside of 1A protection unless there is no moderation? If I genuinely defame someone on Facebook, couldn't they sue Facebook for damages as a publisher of the defamatory content?