Battle for Section 230 - The Situation Monitoring Thread for Monitoring the Situation of the Situation Monitor's Situation Monitoring

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
NOT Sword Fighter Super said:
Because then Null would be held personally responsible for anything any user on this site publishes.
Click to expand...
Only if he keeps hosting his site in the U.S. using Lolcow LLC. What prevents him from redomiciling to Vaca de las risas S.A.?
I know he talks about this on his livestreams, about how his hosting and companies are in the U.S., but it doesn't cost much to incorporate a company or physically ship a server overseas.
 
863F1E11-832E-4ADC-B43B-205B37401C63.jpeg

The FCC will literally turn the Internet into television in terms of censorship. Not surprising the guy who killed Net Neutrality will also kill Section 230 as well.
 
It's interesting that you claim "Facebook and Twitter aren't protected by it" because those are two of 230-opposing politicians' favorite examples of sites that we need to more effectively censor (by removing section 230). These companies are headquartered in the United States, and their corporate officers are largely US residents/citizens. And while it's true that, theoretically, we could all host our sites in Liberia, we should also consider the practical hurdles that would be involved in doing that. A few things to think about:
  • You can find many examples of cases where companies cave to censorship laws in order to operate in a certain country. China is the most prominent example. Now, let's imagine what would happen if such laws were implemented in the United States. Is it more likely that Twitter would censor only the US version of their site while delivering an unrestricted version to the rest of the world? Or, would it be easier for them to apply the restrictions required by US law site-wide? (Or, is it more likely that they shut down or morph into something unrecognizable?)
  • There are few countries in the world with the infrastructure necessary to deliver these services. There are even fewer that also have speech laws comparable to what we have today in the United States.
  • The United States government has long arms. Most of the world's non-shithole countries want the goodwill of the US, and that means they have extradition agreements with the US. Where are you going planning to go host your site? Iran?
But who the fuck cares about those huge sites nowadays, anyway? Like broadcast/cable TV, they're mostly cancerous. And they have so much money and so much clout that they're going to get to write the laws that replace 230, anyway.

It's the sites like this one that stand to lose the most from a repeal of section 230. If Null owned a newspaper, and I wrote in article that was published in that newspaper that says "Ezra Klein is a child molester", Null could be sued for publishing that libelous article; he is accountable for what is published in his newspaper.

If I make a forum post on KF that says "Ezra Klein is a child molester", Null is protected by Section 230.

The only way for the site operator to protect himself from being sued is prior restraint.
 
hundredpercent said:
Only if he keeps hosting his site in the U.S. using Lolcow LLC. What prevents him from redomiciling to Vaca de las risas S.A.?
I know he talks about this on his livestreams, about how his hosting and companies are in the U.S., but it doesn't cost much to incorporate a company or physically ship a server overseas.
Click to expand...
Because other countries don't have an analogue to Section 230.
 
hundredpercent said:
Only if he keeps hosting his site in the U.S. using Lolcow LLC. What prevents him from redomiciling to Vaca de las risas S.A.?
I know he talks about this on his livestreams, about how his hosting and companies are in the U.S., but it doesn't cost much to incorporate a company or physically ship a server overseas.
Click to expand...
I reckon turning your argument around and declaring Zuckerbook et al publishers, or better yet, utilities would be light years better.
Since they are practically monopolies in their respective fields.

Want all the benefits of being a publisher/utility? Then step up and accept all responsibilities as well, including a huge dong of lawsuits.
 
I should’ve refreshed the fucking thread before posting. Two other faggots already posted what I did. That’s what I get for keeping the tab open for 2 days

Shield Breaker said:
Null reacting to Twitter and Facebook; October 14th, 2020, colorized:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=8ckPatPBAk8


This is probably the best option, since no matter what the FCC 'clarifies' the protection of places like the farms remain, I would think.
Click to expand...
You know, I’m not even sure how far a new rule would go with them. Like how much power could it have? They can’t invalidate a law. But they sure as hell can influence how it’s handled.
 
malt ipecac said:
It's interesting that you claim "Facebook and Twitter aren't protected by it" because those are two of 230-opposing politicians' favorite examples of sites that we need to more effectively censor (by removing section 230). These companies are headquartered in the United States, and their corporate officers are largely US residents/citizens. And while it's true that, theoretically, we could all host our sites in Liberia, we should also consider the practical hurdles that would be involved in doing that. A few things to think about:
Click to expand...
Since when were politicians smart?
My point is that all laws everywhere apply to Facebook, since their operations are global. If they were sued in a German court, they would not be able to claim Section 230. Even if it were repealed, it would have no effect on them.
malt ipecac said:
  • You can find many examples of cases where companies cave to censorship laws in order to operate in a certain country. China is the most prominent example. Now, let's imagine what would happen if such laws were implemented in the United States. Is it more likely that Twitter would censor only the US version of their site while delivering an unrestricted version to the rest of the world? Or, would it be easier for them to apply the restrictions required by US law site-wide? (Or, is it more likely that they shut down or morph into something unrecognizable?)
Click to expand...
1) Twitter already applies European censorship law worldwide.
2) Repealing Section 230 doesn't imply creating explicit censorship laws. That would cause new problems, I agree.
malt ipecac said:
  • There are few countries in the world with the infrastructure necessary to deliver these services. There are even fewer that also have speech laws comparable to what we have today in the United States.
Click to expand...
Speech laws apply to the users of the site. If speech laws apply to the provider, they're already fucked.
malt ipecac said:
  • The United States government has long arms. Most of the world's non-shithole countries want the goodwill of the US, and that means they have extradition agreements with the US. Where are you going planning to go host your site? Iran?
Click to expand...
That's for criminal charges. Section 230 does not grant immunity against prosecution, only against civil suits.
It beggars belief to think the U.S. would bother applying the full weight of the military-industrial complex to enforce a default judgement for defamation. It also seems strange to think that the U.S. would have jurisdiction over a foreign-hosted, foreign-incorporated site. Even if it did, how are they going to collect without piercing the corporate veil?
malt ipecac said:
But who the fuck cares about those huge sites nowadays, anyway? Like broadcast/cable TV, they're mostly cancerous. And they have so much money and so much clout that they're going to get to write the laws that replace 230, anyway.

It's the sites like this one that stand to lose the most from a repeal of section 230. If Null owned a newspaper, and I wrote in article that was published in that newspaper that says "Ezra Klein is a child molester", Null could be sued for publishing that libelous article; he is accountable for what is published in his newspaper.

If I make a forum post on KF that says "Ezra Klein is a child molester", Null is protected by Section 230.

The only way for the site operator to protect himself from being sued is prior restraint.
Click to expand...
Section 230 protects you from civil cases in the US. It does not protect you from civil cases in, say, Germany. It is unlikely that an American court would find jurisdiction over a foreign corporation with no material business presence in the US, and if it did it is unlikely that it would be able to pierce the corporate veil.

garakfan69 said:
Because other countries don't have an analogue to Section 230.
Click to expand...

Chile has Article 85 Ñ of Law 17.336, which is an analogue to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 but with less onerous requirements. See OP.
Singapore has the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill, which has similar provisions (sites can receive administrative orders, but are not liable for user-generated content)
Many other countries have similar laws. The US is not unique in this regard.
 
hundredpercent said:
Only if he keeps hosting his site in the U.S. using Lolcow LLC. What prevents him from redomiciling to Vaca de las risas S.A.?
Click to expand...

Not a lawyer (as you're about to see), but I wonder if he would get caught out by the CLOUD act:

Primarily the CLOUD Act amends the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement to compel U.S.-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data are stored in the U.S. or on foreign soil.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this interacts with Section 230 but the fact that he is the administrator of the site means that he's got to comply with warrants no matter where the site is physically hosted.

And if it is a loophole as you suggest, I don't think it'll last too long.

I would expect that to be immune he'd have to be personally domiciled outside the USA to avoid this.
 
hundredpercent said:
My point is that all laws everywhere apply to Facebook, since their operations are global. If they were sued in a German court, they would not be able to claim Section 230. Even if it were repealed, it would have no effect on them.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting idea of how respective countries' laws might apply to a global corporation, but you're mostly wrong.

A German citizen can sue Facebook in the US, sure. A country's court can do whatever the hell it wants. Hell, some court in Yemen just sentenced Donald Trump to the death penalty a couple weeks ago. But then comes the question: "What are you gonna do about it?"

If the US government won't agree to play along with the German (or Yemeni) court you used in your example, there isn't much the German government can do (this would actually be the EU, I think, but we'll put that aside). They could block Germans' access to Facebook, sure. They could stage an invasion of the US for the purpose of extraditing Mark Zuckerberg. But ultimately, it's the US law that matters to these companies.

You might have read about cases where a multinational corporation establishes an independent legal entity in a foreign country. A well-known example of this is Apple's business in the EU and the associated bullshit about how they use their Irish entity for "tax avoidance". Now, tax purposes are always a consideration, but another important reason for structuring a business this way is compliance with local laws. For example: due to a German law prohibiting holocaust denial, Facebook banned such posts from its platform in Germany several years ago (Facebook had not done this worldwide until very recently, and only due to political pressure, not outright legal prohibition). Twitter voluntarily blocks certain accounts in Turkey in exchange for the Turkish government allowing it to operate.

hundredpercent said:
Speech laws apply to the users of the site. If speech laws apply to the provider, they're already fucked.
Click to expand...
You know this is the whole reason we're talking about section 230 and why its repeal would be bad, right?

When discussing the law, "speech" covers a broad scope of activities beyond an individual speaking or writing. When you hear somebody say "freedom of the press", they're still talking about "freedom of speech".
 
I don’t know why anybody thinks getting rid of Section 230 is going to get Twitter and Facebook to lighten up on their censorship. Getting rid of it outright isn’t going to make the moderation less restrictive, it’s just going to kill these sites entirely by rendering them inoperable, along with every other space on the internet where the average person can publicly post content. Even in the absolute “best” case scenario, it would just kill off anybody who wasn’t already a multi-billion dollar corporation who could afford a team of lawyers to defend themselves from the inevitable torrent of libel lawsuits. (In other words, pretty much anyone except Twitter and Facebook.)

Threatening to get rid of Section 230 protections is basically a combination of threatening nuclear annihilation, and the misguided belief that Twitter and Facebook are the only places discussion happens on the internet.

IMO, the ideal solution would be if a court could find Twitter and Facebook’s moderation to not be “in good faith”, i.e., not something done solely to remove porn or gore or other offensive content of the sort. I believe there’s only been one other case where that was ruled in that way, when a website was deleting any mention of their competitors.
 
Does Ajit have any real power to actually force his interpretation of Section 230? Don't any change to the law need to come from Congress? Is this just going to be him clarifying him and Trumps views on Section 230 and what they want from any proposed changes? Or is this guy about to use the Constitution to wipe his ass?

I'm hoping this announcement is just him saying this is what Section 230 is supposed to protect and that he wants from future bills. Then I'm hoping the Dems tell him to choke on a dick and nothing happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom