Fixing The Section 230 Dilemma - to fix Google/Facebook/Twitter

The Market Ticker ^ | 2022-01-17 | Karl Denninger

[Chad C. Mulligan]

There has been a lot of digital ink spilled on Section 230 and plenty of threats to eliminate it.

*snip*

The CDA came about in response to other hot-button issues related to kids and sex content, primarily but not exclusively. There was also a raging dumpster file over ripped-off content, particularly on Usenet, which was an interesting issue because the ripped off content was so voluminous that it constituted 80-90% of the total. A large part of that was due to the fact that Usenet was mostly a text discussion system so to put up binary files (such as images) you had to 7-bit-text encode it first and that made the file sizes wildly expand; the rest was simply due to the fact that one scan out of Hustler was larger in size, even before amplification, than 100 text replies.

It was thus impossible for an ISP to claim "they didn't know" what was going on. Not only did they know they had to spend 80% or more of their resources that went to Usenet, both in storage and bandwidth, specifically to sell access to illegal material whether that illegality was kiddie porn or ripped off software and images.

*snip*

In this background the CDA was passed, including Section 230, which exempts service providers from liability provided they are not the "source" of the content in question. It also left open the capacity to make decisions on an editorial basis without puncturing that shield. The law was poorly-written from my perspective and I opposed it at the time for that reason; there was a legitimate argument for codifying protection of some sort but what they passed was trivially abusable, which has now occurred.

So let's fix it, but without vitiating Section 230 directly -- and yes, we can.

[Chad C. Mulligan]

Denninger has the solution. Prohibit censorship by any platform that derives its' revenue from the sale of targeted advertising. Two paragraphs added to the existing law:

No provider of a public service, whether social media, storage, processing power or infrastructure (including DNS, pipes, etc.) may discriminate on viewpoint as to the persons they allow on said service or the viewpoints expressed in any form or fashion, for or against, if they collect, analyze and sell or use tracking information of any sort for the purpose of marketing, advertising or content selection. For the purposes of this law any cross-ownership interest of any sort between firms, including stock or option ownership and common board membership, or membership in or participation with any coordinating entity between firms whether for profit or not shall bring a firm under the umbrella of this requirement.

A provider who violates this section of law takes publisher liability for all content stored or distributed on their systems and networks irrespective of any provisions that would otherwise shield them either civilly or criminally.

For those who don't follow his blog - Denninger started and ran an ISP at the dawn of the Internet. He knows whereof he speaks.

[ptsal]

Thanks for the post.

Right now, it looks like the social media companies own congress and the regulatory community.

[Chad C. Mulligan]

Trump needs to keep those two paragraphs in his hip pocket, to be deployed at the first opportunity. Such as January 2023.

[T.B. Yoits]

Once these companies censored political thought, they became content providers and no longer protected as service providers. They need to be fined for every penny of illegal political contributions-in-kind. Every penny.

[Renfrew]

So if I’m running a baseball forum I get fined if I ban someone who is there only to post Antifa propaganda?

[z3n]

So if I’m running a baseball forum I get fined if I ban someone who is there only to post Antifa propaganda?

~~~

Service provider protections should not go away.

If you are running a baseball forum you shouldn’t be held responsible for content your users post, within reason.

I’ve been saying this for years. I’ve posted it here on at least 3 occasions.
The fix to this is a compromise. My idea has always been that software companies DECLARE (register?) their software a service platform, or a publishing outlet.

1) Service platforms may not editorialize or publish content other than business related press release and operational information.
Service platforms (everything from bulletin boards to social media content platforms to device applications) are not liable for the content transmitted on their services.

2) Publishing outlets may or may not publish contracted or 2nd party content, but no matter what content they publish, they are held responsible, within the law, for the veracity and effect of their content.

The general social benefits of this distinction.

Service providers may not editorialize, or censor.

Publishers can be sued

[Renfrew]

So if I run my baseball forum I have two choices:
1) I let anyone post any opinions even if has nothing to do with baseball
2) I remove non-baseball posts, but am now liable for anything one of my users posts?