Repealing section 230 is no solution to cancel culture

1.3K

•

I absolutely hate that republican congressmen only hear from big tech companies and say to themselves.. we have to punish these big companies, let's harm them in the way that will hurt the worst. But that ends up being something that would punish small site creators, and make my ability to run an alternative non-viable. If I was liable for every thing a user said or posted on one of my sites, given the fact that I try to not moderate at all and I have the kinds of users that don't want to be moderated, that would be an immense criminal liability to run any kind of a small forum of any type, let alone one trying to facilitate suppressed speech.

Some of them say they want to reform it after repealing it. First off, the internet can't operate with 230 gone for even a second. Really the internet is a product of 230 (the decision to not use law in some places, for those who want to take exception to the idea government creating the internet, it did it through a negative space in government). Second, I get the impression none of them have any idea of what a balanced or successful reform would even look like even if they reformed first (the only option).

So there is a libertarian solution and an ancap solution. I'm going to mostly cover the libertarian version here because the ancap solution is so concise we'll cover that in a bit in one sentence, at the end.

So the issue is are they a publisher or not? A reform to section 230 that forces complete non-moderation is not a good idea. Site owners should have some control over the kinds of content on their site. That is that sites run for children shouldn't be forced to accept pornographic content, or gore. Having a TOS or Content Policy is reasonable. The nuance that I haven't heard a single congress person mention is that its how you enforce your TOS/CoPo is relevant. Consistent enforcement of a TOS is what makes you a service. A service is resources + rules for using them. What makes you a publisher is arbitrary or inconsistent enforcement or removing content outside of your TOS/CoPo.

For example. Running a kids website, if I said that pornographic content is prohibited, and then removed any pornographic content that gets posted, that would be running a service. But if I'm running a micro-blogger and say no hate speech, and then ban any discussion of genetic and behavior differences among races, but then also allow South Africa's president to post himself singing "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer." I've now applied personal judgement about what content I'm allowing on the site instead of applying the TOS. That would make me a curator/publisher.

Now some may think there are loopholes you could add to your TOS, like, "X site retains the right to remove a post for any reason under our discretion." In that case you basically just admitted that you are a publisher in your TOS, and therefore are one.

What solutions I have heard among them are either the no moderation rule, or "balance of viewpoints" rules that sound very similar to ~2008 era net neutrality proposals by the left before it devolved into a conversation about whether or not you should be allowed to pay more for an improvement to a service.

My solution seems reasonable right, among the three kinds of reforms? But I've never heard it considered among congressmen, or anyone on the right. They just want to repeal 230 because like all socialists (which many on the right even if they don't want to admit it are | taking the misesian definition of a socialist), are obsessed with being tough and doing the biggest thing to fight their enemies and the things they don't like instead of thinking about what the results would be.

Now the ancap version: Let companies do what they want. If you don't like it, build and market an alternative. That's what I've done, and what all who dislike cancel culture should do. Burning down the whole internet because you don't like how Amazon or Facebook is behaving isn't the answer. We should tell these congress people to build and or even better use the alternatives we've already created for them. Canceling the internet doesn't help fight cancel culture.

I'm very against cancel culture. But if you are worried that companies are erasing or removing their users' speech, increasing their liability to users' speech isn't going to make them remove less of it. I absolutely hate that republican congressmen only hear from big tech companies and say to themselves.. we have to punish these big companies, let's harm them in the way that will hurt the worst. But that ends up being something that would punish small site creators, and make my ability to run an alternative non-viable. If I was liable for every thing a user said or posted on one of my sites, given the fact that I try to not moderate at all and I have the kinds of users that don't want to be moderated, that would be an immense criminal liability to run any kind of a small forum of any type, let alone one trying to facilitate suppressed speech. Some of them say they want to reform it after repealing it. First off, the internet can't operate with 230 gone for even a second. Really the internet is a product of 230 (the decision to not use law in some places, for those who want to take exception to the idea government creating the internet, it did it through a negative space in government). Second, I get the impression none of them have any idea of what a balanced or successful reform would even look like even if they reformed first (the only option). So there is a libertarian solution and an ancap solution. I'm going to mostly cover the libertarian version here because the ancap solution is so concise we'll cover that in a bit in one sentence, at the end. So the issue is are they a publisher or not? A reform to section 230 that forces complete non-moderation is not a good idea. Site owners should have some control over the kinds of content on their site. That is that sites run for children shouldn't be forced to accept pornographic content, or gore. Having a TOS or Content Policy is reasonable. The nuance that I haven't heard a single congress person mention is that its how you enforce your TOS/CoPo is relevant. Consistent enforcement of a TOS is what makes you a service. A service is resources + rules for using them. What makes you a publisher is arbitrary or inconsistent enforcement or removing content outside of your TOS/CoPo. For example. Running a kids website, if I said that pornographic content is prohibited, and then removed any pornographic content that gets posted, that would be running a service. But if I'm running a micro-blogger and say no hate speech, and then ban any discussion of genetic and behavior differences among races, but then also allow South Africa's president to post himself singing "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer." I've now applied personal judgement about what content I'm allowing on the site instead of applying the TOS. That would make me a curator/publisher. Now some may think there are loopholes you could add to your TOS, like, "X site retains the right to remove a post for any reason under our discretion." In that case you basically just admitted that you are a publisher in your TOS, and therefore are one. What solutions I have heard among them are either the no moderation rule, or "balance of viewpoints" rules that sound very similar to ~2008 era net neutrality proposals by the left before it devolved into a conversation about whether or not you should be allowed to pay more for an improvement to a service. My solution seems reasonable right, among the three kinds of reforms? But I've never heard it considered among congressmen, or anyone on the right. They just want to repeal 230 because like all socialists (which many on the right even if they don't want to admit it are | taking the misesian definition of a socialist), are obsessed with being tough and doing the biggest thing to fight their enemies and the things they don't like instead of thinking about what the results would be. Now the ancap version: Let companies do what they want. If you don't like it, build and market an alternative. That's what I've done, and what all who dislike cancel culture should do. Burning down the whole internet because you don't like how Amazon or Facebook is behaving isn't the answer. We should tell these congress people to build and or even better use the alternatives we've already created for them. Canceling the internet doesn't help fight cancel culture.

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

What I'm saying is we can replace that whole paragraph with a TOS enforcement consistency clause. That will give tech operators, including small tech, the largest degree of freedom over what kind of service they want to offer, but also require them to give users a level playing field where each user plays under the same rules. Even leaving the others in there and removing "otherwise objectional" still allows for arbitrary enforcement where one person's speech will be allowed, but another's similar speech won't when they are targeted for political reasons.

An example from the past that would violate my suggestion but not yours would be the blurred lines issue on youtube. Many have commented that it was blured lines for youtube content policy because they allowed a (((music company))) to do something that none of their other users were allowed to do.

That does make them a publisher/curator when they say this thing can be allowed, but these other things are not under the grounds that we've just allowed for something else. Maybe your solution would solve a large amount of political speech but the law would still be dishonest in claiming it successfully delineated publishers and services. You will still have publishers pretending they are services when they're not.

(post is archived)