Otherwise Objectionable: The Internet At Risk
from the saving-the-internet dept
Imagine an internet where every website faced an impossible choice: either carefully review every single post before it goes live (making them essentially TV stations), or allow absolutely everything with zero moderation. This nightmare scenario wasn’t hypothetical — it was exactly what the infamous Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy ruling threatened to create, before Section 230 saved us from that fate.
In the latest episode of our Section 230 podcast series “Otherwise Objectionable,” I spoke with the two people who prevented this disaster — Section 230’s authors Chris Cox and Ron Wyden — along with the lawyer who represented Stratton Oakmont (yes, the “Wolf of Wall Street” firm) in the lawsuit that nearly broke the internet.
While this history is often misunderstood, the internet was starting to fill up with garbage and nonsense (spam) and internet services were trying to figure out how they could create more curated communities, such as Prodigy’s attempt to make a “family friendly” space.
The Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy ruling threatened all of that, by saying that if you did any moderation at all, then it was possible that you could be held liable for any content you left up.
In that world, you’re left with what’s referred to as “the moderator’s dilemma.” You either very, very carefully review absolutely everything — making you more like a TV station or book publisher, in which case only a few bits of content would be allowed out each day. Or you moderate nothing and let there be a total free-for-all of spam, abuse and harassment.
Cox and Wyden understood that this would be a disaster. They recognized that the value of the internet was that you could have something better: a place where different kinds of communities could be cultivated. You didn’t need it to be a top-down “broadcast” style model like a publisher or a TV station, but also, you didn’t need it to be everything for everyone.
Section 230 created a third way — one that enabled websites to moderate content as they saw fit without facing liability for everything they missed. This wasn’t just a technical legal fix — it was a fundamental recognition that the internet could enable new forms of communication and community that didn’t fit into old regulatory boxes.
Filed Under: chris cox, liability, otherwise objectionable, ron wyden, section 230, spam
Companies: prodigy, stratton oakmont
Comments on “Otherwise Objectionable: The Internet At Risk”
I absolutely do not want to have to treat discord like the 4chan app.
If they repeal section 230 I’m repealing their balls.
Re:
Well, I suppose it won’t matter since they’ll probably not vote it down if it gets put to the floor.
Both because it’s not a direct repeal (more of a delayed one) and because it’s another cyanide pill wrapped in “think of the kids!!” candy.
Really wish there was a way to see how the ENTIRETY of congress’ members feel about it, but even then I’m not sure if I’d like the answer.
I don’t know how to keep going if they get rid of the internet.
What will happen is that sites will block usa users
Of course geo blocking can be circumvented
Circumventing geographic restrictions does break any laws
Also, this will just make calexit more likely
A site in an independent California would be subject to any laws of the remaining 49 united states
Re:
Independent California is never going to happen.
Most sites are based in the US.
This would kill the internet. And the US economy with it.
Re:
lmao
Y’all need to give up that dream. It ain’t ever gonna happen.
Re: Re:
Aside from Independent Cali/Oregon/Washington being driven historically by the sort of people who are now down with Trump.
When does a platform become a publisher
I understand and appreciate the relationship of Sec 230 to content moderation and the problem it solves. But it would seem that 1)there are some loopholes needing clearing up and 2)clarification of the boundaries between a platform and a publisher as all too often the likes of Google hide behind the former when they are in reality the latter.
As to point 1, an example of this is in the review space where Google isn’t obligated to moderate or remove a review even if it is found to be defamatory.
RE point 2 – Google assembles and mixes and matches data from a multitude of sources, rearranges it in unique ways and then says that it is content created by others and posted on their platform. An example of this are the local Business Listings. A related coming example are AI generated search results.
In both cases there needs to be quick and easy avenues to fix the output and prevent additional harm. Currently there is no recourse and Google doesn’t implement any safeguards because they have sec 230’s categorical protections.
This might not require a total abandonment of 230 but surely some modifications are in order ?
Re:
Stop advocating for breaking the internet when they’re in the middle of trying to do so.
Re:
Please read this because you appear to not understand 230: https://www.bestnettech.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/
There is no distinction in the law. That’s a myth. Even more to the point, the WHOLE POINT of 230 is that platforms ARE publishers and SHOULD BE FREE to act like a publisher, without fearing liability of a traditional publisher.
That’s literally what Chris Cox discusses in this episode.
Again, this totally misunderstands 230. There is no distinction between platform and publisher. The intent of 230 is to allow Google to do exactly what you describe here. The whole point is so that they can act like a publisher, but in a way that allows them to share millions of pieces of content.
This is a totally made up concern. Every large company will remove content if it’s been found by a court to be defamatory.
Yes. So what? The things you listed are protected by the 1st Amendment. What’s your concern?
This is just flat out wrong. Google has a massive trust & safety operation, and takes those concerns seriously, because if they don’t it damages their business.
People keep saying this and EVERY SINGLE TIME, as I try to dig in, I find out the person making this claim doesn’t understand 230. Which appears to be the case with you as well.
Re: Re:
It’d not be so infuriating if it didn’t seem to extend so far up the chain of power.
Makes it harder to fully organize protests against this stupidity. Hopefully what resistance there is will be enough, but it’s hard to have hopes for anything.
Re: Re:
Every person who wants to alter or repeal 230 has never made a good faith argument for why that should happen.
Re:
There are no good mods, and they all break the base game entirely, generally causing full system crashes.
So zillow shouldn’t be sued if it allows the zillow application to an apartment with an illegal ad?