Biden Administration Faces Preliminary Injunction Against Putting Pressure on Social Media

[Xzi]

The First Amendment is a limitation placed on the government, not the platform. If it’s not illegal, as in against the law, it is necessarily protected. I don’t know what’s confusing here.

Presuming someone does post something illegal, and the site's moderators are helping to protect their identity to keep them from being held accountable, would that not be considered criminal activity in itself?

Did you miss the part about the "authority performing periodic inspections" I mentioned? Easy solution.

Then people get to wondering who the inspectors are and who it is that's choosing them. There's no way to make everybody happy unless enforcement mechanisms are impersonal and universal.

 

[Foxi4]

Presuming someone does post something illegal, and the site's moderators are helping to protect their identity to keep them from being held accountable, would that not be considered criminal activity in itself?

That depends on whether they hold a record of the real identity (not all platforms do) and whether law enforcement presents a warrant for the information request. Nobody is obligated to share details regarding their users with law enforcement without due process - that’s unconstitutional. If you want to compel a third-party to help with an investigation, you need a warrant, in the same way as you need a warrant to search a property. I expect law enforcement to follow legal process in the same way as I’m expected to follow the law. If the request is legal and you still refuse to provide information that you do have, you are aiding and abetting.

EDIT: This is actually relevant in the Internet space when it comes to VPN’s - the best testimonial you can get about a VPN is a response to a warrant that’s just a blank piece of paper because no details are stored. That’s a VPN you can actually trust - anything short of that is insufficient level of service.

 

[Kurt91]

Then people get to wondering who the inspectors are and who it is that's choosing them. There's no way to make everybody happy unless enforcement mechanisms are impersonal and universal.

First of all, "Perfect Solution Fallacy". Just because there's bound to be something to make it an imperfect solution doesn't mean it's not a solution worth trying at the very least until a better one can be found.

Second of all, it would all come down to transparency. If a moderator is arrested/punished for something like this, it should be covered with the same amount of air-time and implied importance as if Zuckerberg or Musk themselves were arrested. After all, in this case, it's affecting the constitutional right of free speech and potential governmental censorship. It's a "Who watches the watchman" situation, and if you can't just continue having somebody official in that position (because you're just shifting the goalposts to "Who watches that person?"), then it needs to be the public.

 

[Xzi]

That depends on whether they hold a record of the real identity (not all platforms do) and whether law enforcement presents a warrant for the information request. Nobody is obligated to share details regarding their users with law enforcement without due process - that’s unconstitutional. If you want to compel a third-party to help with an investigation, you need a warrant, in the same way as you need a warrant to search a property. I expect law enforcement to follow legal process in the same way as I’m expected to follow the law. If the request is legal and you still refuse to provide information that you do have, you are aiding and abetting.

This is of course reasonable, I'm simply positing that when law enforcement comes across a crackhouse, they shut it down immediately. They don't issue a first, second, and third warning through the mail. Similarly, a social media site that has a pattern of hosting criminal activity over a year or more should not be given as much leeway as those playing by the rules.

 

[Foxi4]

This is of course reasonable, I'm simply positing that when law enforcement comes across a crackhouse, they shut it down immediately. They don't issue a first, second, and third warning through the mail. Similarly, a social media site that has a pattern of hosting criminal activity over a year or more should not be given as much leeway as those playing by the rules.

Couple of differences here. When crackheads are doing crack in the eyeshot of an officer, there’s a (very) reasonable suspicion of crimes being committed by the individuals inside. At that point they *can* enter the property because they’re in the middle of witnessing a crime and carrying out legitimate law enforcement duties, there just happens to be a door in the way. Officers arrest crackheads, they don’t arrest a house - a house is not a legal person. You might argue that the home owner is partly responsible, but you have to establish that in court. Websites are not dissimilar - if you find user-generated content that is illegal, the party responsible is the user (see: CDA 230). The platform has a legal obligation to remove that illegal content upon discovering it, that’s what its protection from liability is contingent on. If that wasn’t the case, Facebook would cease to exist in about 5 picoseconds. If you want to argue that it is *the site* that organises criminal activity, you have to prove that in court (see: Silk Road). Ross William Ulbricht was wanted for conspiracy to distribute drugs, but he actually got chased down by Internal Revenue *first*. It is orders of magnitude more difficult to shut down a website than it is to chase individual users around for what they provably distributed on the web.

 

[Xzi]

The platform has a legal obligation to remove that illegal content upon discovering it, that’s what its protection from liability is contingent on.

Feels like one of those things, similar to anti-trust laws, that isn't really being enforced right now for whatever reason. Twitter was host to almost exclusively animal torture videos for a whole week after Musk fucked up the auto-moderator.

 

[Foxi4]

Feels like one of those things, similar to anti-trust laws, that isn't really being enforced right now for whatever reason. Twitter was host to almost exclusively animal torture videos for a whole week after Musk fucked up the auto-moderator.

If it wasn’t enforced, every other post you see would be a beheading, guaranteed. Sites have to do all that is reasonably in their power - manually reviewing all content is impossible, so any problem with automated systems leads to delayed response. Trust me, it’s hard enough here, and our systems are in part somewhat automated. I’m not at liberty to say to what extent or how it works, but even with someone online 24/7 some spam bots will still slip through until a community member reports them.

 

[Jayro]

Free speech is specifically protected for the purposes of criticising the government (among other reasons), be it rightfully or wrongly. You just listed one of the core reasons why it’s protected speech under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment is a limitation placed on the government, not the platform. If it’s not illegal, it is necessarily protected and a moderation decision is up to the platform. I don’t know what’s confusing here. We already know that the government has access to special portals which fast track moderation of posts that contain illegal content - that’s your mechanism.

I think the disconnect here is that just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right or okay.

 

[Foxi4]

I think the disconnect here is that just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right or okay.

There is no disconnect. It’s not for the government to determine what is “right” or “okay” to say. Either something is against the law, in which case the government pursues it, or it isn’t and it cannot, as it is constitutionally prohibited from doing so.

 

[Xzi]

If it wasn’t enforced, every other post you see would be a beheading, guaranteed. Sites have to do all that is reasonably in their power - manually reviewing all content is impossible, so any problem with automated systems leads to delayed response. Trust me, it’s hard enough here, and our systems are in part somewhat automated. I’m not at liberty to say to what extent or how it works, but even with someone online 24/7 some spam bots will still slip through until a community member reports them.

It all seems quite arbitrary at the moment. How much illegal content has to be posted, and for how long does it have to be allowed to stay up before a site's liability protections are removed? Are there any notable examples of it ever happening?

 

[Foxi4]

It all seems quite arbitrary at the moment. How much illegal content has to be posted, and for how long does it have to be allowed to stay up before a site's liability protections are removed? Are there any notable examples of it ever happening?

Your question is not specific enough. 230 concerns civil liability, not criminal liability. It is assumed that the host is not criminally liable for something somebody uploaded onto their servers. You’d first have to have a civil lawsuit and you’d have to demonstrate that content was not removed upon a well-justified request. The defense is very strong - those lawsuits are usually non-starters, you need to pursue the party that uploaded the content, not the host. As far as cases of websites getting seized under a variety of different laws or statutes are concerned, there’s plenty - Megaupload is a big one. We’d have to discuss a specific case to have a more in-depth discussion, otherwise we’re limited to broad strokes.

EDIT: Here’s a tl;dr from Wikipedia with two examples:

Section 230 immunity is not unlimited. The statute specifically excepts federal criminal liability (§230(e)(1)), electronic privacy violations (§230(e)(4)) and intellectual property claims (§230(e)(2)). There is also no immunity from state laws that are consistent with 230(e)(3) though state criminal laws have been held preempted in cases such as Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna and Voicenet Communications, Inc. v. Corbett (agreeing that "the plain language of the CDA provides ... immunity from inconsistent state criminal laws"). What constitutes "publishing" under the CDA is somewhat narrowly defined by the courts. The Ninth Circuit held that "Publication involves reviewing, editing, and deciding whether to publish or to withdraw from publication third-party content." Thus, the CDA does not provide immunity with respect to content that an interactive service provider creates or develops entirely by themselves.

 

[Xzi]

Your question is not specific enough. 230 concerns civil liability, not criminal liability. It is assumed that the host is not criminally liable for something somebody uploaded onto their servers. You’d first have to have a civil lawsuit and you’d have to demonstrate that content was not removed upon a well-justified request. The defense is very strong - those lawsuits are usually non-starters, you need to pursue the party that uploaded the content, not the host. As far as cases of websites getting seized under a variety of different laws or statutes are concerned, there’s plenty - Megaupload is a big one. We’d have to discuss a specific case to have a more in-depth discussion, otherwise we’re limited to broad strokes.

EDIT: Here’s a tl;dr from Wikipedia with two examples:

Essentially a total PITA to hold any individual or entity accountable for their words and actions online, then. Unless you're rich, I'm sure.

 

[Foxi4]

Essentially a total PITA to hold any individual or entity accountable for their words and actions online, then. Unless you're rich, I'm sure.

What entity? 230 doesn’t protect any website from liability for content they themselves produce. The website is only not liable for user generated content. If a website itself publishes something damaging to you, you can take them to court. If an individual posts something on a website, you have to chase that individual *unless* the content is illegal, in which case 230 protections do not apply at all.

 

[tabzer]

What's with this desire to treat the government like a living and loving parental figure? Is it the missing parents?

 

[Xzi]

What's with this desire to treat the government like a living and loving parental figure? Is it the missing parents?

You expect corporations and billionaires to regulate themselves? How very tabzer of you.

 

[tabzer]

You expect corporations and billionaires to regulate themselves? How very tabzer of you.

Nice strawman. I see you are tapping into a lifetime of pain and oppression to assemble it.

Your government is corporations and billionaires regulating themselves.

 

[lolcatzuru]

Imagine that. A Trump appointed judge wanting to protect lies and misinformation. If I didn't know any better, I'd almost think the gop NEEDS their lies in order to keep their base. Oh, wait.

can you be a bit more specific as to the misinformation specifically? the only thing i can think of was the hunter biden laptop...oh wait.... similiarly, i see what you did there, the ending is funny because thats what the left does.

 

[Xzi]

Your government is corporations and billionaires regulating themselves.

When oligarchs like Trump are elected to office, I can't really disagree with that assessment. Neither party is in any hurry to overturn Citizens United, but that's exactly what we need to do if we're to chase all the reptilian lobbyists out of DC.

Of course, you don't like it when we try to hold our oligarchs to account, either, so there is no pleasing you.

 

[tabzer]

When oligarchs like Trump are elected to office, I can't really disagree with that assessment. Neither party is in any hurry to overturn Citizens United, but that's exactly what we need to do if we're to chase all the reptilian lobbyists out of DC.

Of course, you don't like it when we try to hold our oligarchs to account, either, so there is no pleasing you.

Trump is your oligarch, buddy, and nobody here but you are implying he was some kind of an exception. You don't have a position if you aren't projecting, huh?

You are passing the argument that you think it's okay for the government to play the role of parents because oligarchs exist. Whether it was a knee-jerk reaction or you genuinely think so, I don't know. Let me explain it in non-uncertain terms, Trump is closer to your chest than mine. Using the government to justify more government is a stupid loop that dooms you. It drives me a little nuts that here, of all sites, this very basic string of logic needs to be pointed at. Some of you call yourself developers. The audacity!

You and @KingVamp shouldn't try to push your failures onto observers. Maybe you should pay reparations to the rest of the world for your country's actions, if you are as considerate as you pretend to be. I accept paypay.

Consider getting off your "Trump Train" by finding real closure in doing something real about it.

 

[Xzi]

You are passing the argument that you think it's okay for the government to play the role of parents because oligarchs exist.

I didn't say I had any problem in dealing with them the old fashioned way, either, but those are basically the two options. Nor did I come up with the goofy "parenting" analogy, that was all you bud.