CDA 230 - possibly the end of NS?

[Plzen]

This is a sticky issue, with two contradictory principles.

On one hand, sites - just like any physical locale - should have the necessary freedoms to determine what kind of user experience it offers visitors. If you go off on a conspiracy theory tirade in a quiet restaurant, you will probably be asked to leave because your behaviour prevents other clients from having the experience they want and expect from the restaurant. This does not by any reasonable standard constitute a violation of your freedom of speech. If it works for physical locales, then surely it must also apply to websites - because just like restaurants, websites offer certain experiences in order to attract certain kinds of visitors.

On the other hand, a guaranteed right to do something is meaningless without a similarly guaranteed right to the means necessary to do that thing. A great deal of discourse and organisation - political of otherwise - these days happen on the internet, so if it is held that people can be excluded from online discussions does that not also mean that it is held that people do not have the guaranteed right to fully participate in civil society?

I’m inclined to say that any blanket treatment of the issue will be a bad idea.

[Tekania]

This is a sticky issue, with two contradictory principles.

On one hand, sites - just like any physical locale - should have the necessary freedoms to determine what kind of user experience it offers visitors. If you go off on a conspiracy theory tirade in a quiet restaurant, you will probably be asked to leave because your behaviour prevents other clients from having the experience they want and expect from the restaurant. This does not by any reasonable standard constitute a violation of your freedom of speech. If it works for physical locales, then surely it must also apply to websites - because just like restaurants, websites offer certain experiences in order to attract certain kinds of visitors.

On the other hand, a guaranteed right to do something is meaningless without a similarly guaranteed right to the means necessary to do that thing. A great deal of discourse and organisation - political of otherwise - these days happen on the internet, so if it is held that people can be excluded from online discussions does that not also mean that it is held that people do not have the guaranteed right to fully participate in civil society?

I’m inclined to say that any blanket treatment of the issue will be a bad idea.

Comes to the Right of free association. You're free to associate with people, they are also free to associate with you. But mandated assocition isn't free. Why should, for example I be required to allow you to speak in my house? If you can't speak in my house that's not abridging any freedom of yours.

That's why I think the setup to this point has been fine. Anyone can setup a forum or blog or website online. And person(s) who do are free to police and taylor their discussion. In short we've alreayd HAD that balance.... nothing neeed fixing for it.

[Nilrahrarfan]

It wasn't supposed to survive the Net Neutrality repeal, either... or the EU Copyright Directive... or maybe the EU Link Tax and SOPA/PIPA too before they got struck down, I can't quite remember because I wasn't here at the time. Why do these doomsday predictions always seem to crop up every two years?

This happens because corrupt Big Tech companies keep putting out scaremonging lies and propaganda whenever governments implements regulations to protect the public which would cut into their profits. Revisions of CDA 230 are aimed at Big Tech and at websites that facilitate criminal activity. I doubt it would effect NS.

I oppose Big Tech censorship. If a website becomes a giant mega-corp like Google or Facebook or even Netflix, it has only a few options.
[*]Declare themselves a platform and turn into 8Chan
[*]Declare themselves a publisher and basically lose their users
[*]Get Broken up
Nationstates is too small for the government to care. This is gonna be AT&T breakup 2: Internet Boogaloo.

[Shofercia]

This was going to happen eventually. Our politics has opened the way for malicious people to manipulate US law over time, and now the people in power have the opportunity to strip away even more of our meager internet privileges.

The DOJ has proposed revisions to CDA 230 recently. For elaboration:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice- ... 230-reform
https://www.wired.com/story/fight-over- ... e-know-it/

I'm going to be straightforward and issue a disclaimer this is going to be a biased post against any revisions/revocation. Call me pro-cda230. That's because while the idea of revising 230 is bi-partisan, though the semantics differ by party, it's bad for everyone. Nobody benefits except politicians, maybe because they can censor negative content.

CDA230 is what allows you to post content on the web, on social media, and platforms like nationstates, without the publishers being held liable for what's posted. Likewise, it allows websites like nationstates to moderate content without being sued for censoring people's opinions.

With the current (proposed) revisions by the DOJ, anybody that posts content on the web that's not "politically neutral" can be held liable for it and sued in US courts. Any "platform" like nationstates can be sued if they ever try to moderate content on their platform that's not in "good faith".

It's no exaggeration to say that NS would not survive this. There'd be to much risk to Max being sued for EVERYTHING he owns the moment a volunteer mod does something that could be construed "in bad faith" ( the term of "bad faith" is vague as fuck) or somebody posts something offensive. Either that or Max chooses to let NS go the way of 8chan, with any posts possibly containing every slur imaginable, with swastikas and sick fringe porn galore. Basically, they'd have to shut down the site or allow all the spam. There'd be no inbetween without walking a tight-rope.

It'll be the same situation for every website and every internet user that makes content (i.e. that includes writing anything on social media, chatrooms, or just any website). Nobody will be protected anymore by anonymity. Nobody.

For a more articulate, friendly explanation for what the fuck is going on, here's a helpful youtube video from a channel called extra credits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UNJ9XfPrWI

Discuss the recent CDA 230 stuff. Usually there's an opinion here, but it's kind of obvious to discern what my opinion is already.

Nope, there has to be some infrastructure in the US to support the majority of people that visit this website. Can you imagine how hard it would be to connect and how high the pings would be if people had to connect to Switzerland from the United States? Pings of at least 130, which would time out pages all the time for anybody with less than stellar US/DS.

I forgot to mention since it's important, but NS has servers in america. Therefore, the content of this website falls under US law. Now, if Max removed any server in US territory then you'd be right. He might have to restrict access from anybody in the US too.

Oh also NS falls under US law because americans use this website. So even if there were to be no servers in the US, NS would still be liable for shit, because america.

NSG doesn't moderate content. Although NSG's warning policy can be suspect, the content, itself, stays on point. The only examples are pornography, murder, rape, calls to violence, and ad bots, because, let's face it, advertising on NSG, in the eyes of mods, is pornography and deserves the same treatment, so sayeth Bortnikov.

So even for the most ardent conservative out there, NSG is fairly neutral when it comes to content moderation. This is geared toward Twitter, because certain twits or tweets, (forgot how to spell that word by I'm referring to text, not people, may peace but not blessing be upon them, lest I offend yet another NSG poster,) are moderated based on views and political alignment, rather than content; for instance Conservative content with one million retweets is going to get much harsher moderation than Liberal content with one thousand retweets. And that's bad, since speech should be moderated similarly, rather than what the View wants it to be.

[Kazarogkai]

So basically free speech will be expanded, why would I not support this?

[Luminesa]

So...I don't quite get this law...What are we supposed to do?

[Kowani]

So...I don't quite get this law...What are we supposed to do?

Nothing. The OP is very far from anything approaching true.