Recent searches
Search options
Can the state of Texas force Facebook to post lies about Joe Biden? https://cepr.net/can-the-state-of-texas-force-facebook-to-post-lies-about-joe-biden/
@DeanBaker13
This might be(?) the first time I've seen a well argued case for modifying 230. Still not sure I'm convinced that unintended consequences wouldn't harm more than it would help.
I wonder if @mmasnick has a counter point already...
@GreenFire
@timjan @DeanBaker13 @GreenFire I've done the counterpoint to Dean thing in the past. I can't do it every time he tweaks his proposal. Last I checked he still misunderstood the nature of the 1st Amendment & distributor liability if you removed 230.
https://www.techdirt.com/2021/12/29/those-who-dont-understand-section-230-are-doomed-to-repeal-it/
@mmasnick @timjan @GreenFire I have responded to Mike's posts in the past. (He seems upset that I modify the proposal based on criticisms -- I plead guilty on that.) Not to rehash everything, but he seems to argue that removing Section 230 protection would raise costs, but somehow not advantage smaller sites that still benefit from it. That seems hard to understand on this planet.
@DeanBaker13 @mmasnick @timjan @GreenFire I gotta admit I'm not even sure what sites he refers to when he's referring to smaller sites. Section 230 helped create the giant social media companies, and because of that, the smaller sites have mostly died.
@david1 @DeanBaker13 @timjan @GreenFire no, section 230 enabled tons of smaller sites and much greater competition. I did a whole research report on this.
And it enabled SITES LIKE THE ONE WE'RE ON.
@mmasnick @david1 @timjan @GreenFire
Unless I'm mistaken, this site does not sell advertising or personal information, which means it would still have Section 230 protection under my proposal. There are many other similar sites. Also, if 230 protection is valuable, sites that currently take ads or sell personal information can change the way they operate.
@DeanBaker13 @david1 @timjan @GreenFire "Also, if 230 protection is valuable, sites that currently take ads or sell personal information can change the way they operate."
Tell me you're an academic who has NEVER had to run a small business without telling me you're an academic who has never had to run a small business.
Holy shit Dean. That's embarrassing.
@mmasnick @david1 @timjan @GreenFire
Yeah, I will disagree with you and sorry, I don't find it embarrassing. Businesses change the way they operate ALL THE TIME. Sorry if you are not aware of that fact.
@DeanBaker13 @david1 @timjan @GreenFire I run a business. It relies on 230 to host a community and advertising to stay in business. You want me to lose the part of my business that's important to me (the community) if I want to be able to keep it in business.
That's insane. It's academic foolishness from an out of touch ivory tower with no actual real world experience.
@DeanBaker13 @david1 @timjan @GreenFire if we got rid of the community (as would be necessary without 230, we'd get less advertising and still die). if we got rid of advertising... we wouldn't make enough money to survive and would go under as well.
Congrats. Thanks for killing Techdirt in your grand experiment based on vibes.
@mmasnick @david1 @timjan @GreenFire I can't say I know Techdirt's business -- maybe you do post lots of things that are arguably defamatory. I have no idea, but I have to say, I would not design policy around ensuring one company's survival, even yours.
@DeanBaker13 Dean, come on. Those who do not post defamatory information get sued ALL THE TIME. https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/06/judge-dismisses-techdirt-lawsuit/
And I was giving you one example to show how it would create problems, not saying "just my business" faces this issue.
I've said in the past that I've regretted interacting with you. This is why.
@mmasnick Print and broadcast media deal with defamation lawsuits, I am at a loss to understand why you insist that Internet platforms can do it, especially when offered the safe harbor of removing potentially defamatory material after notice has been given.
@DeanBaker13 we get on average two dozen bogus defamation threats per year. I spend a ridiculous amount of money on lawyers dealing with them already.
If you put in your solution, that likely goes up an order of magnitude.
I'll make you a deal: will you agree to pay my legal bills and the legal bills of other small companies dealing with such things? If so, then we can discuss your proposal seriously.
@mmasnick Obviously you would have to change your policy on comments. You would have to review the ones where you get a takedown notice. My guess is that the vast majority of instances would be totally frivolous and easily ignored. There will be some that will be plausible and in those cases you can quickly remove the risk by taking them down. Right, I don't see that as an impossible burden given the benefits.
@mmasnick The argument that this process is somehow a huge burden for you, but costless for Twitter and Facebook makes zero sense. They are not lobbying to give up their Section 230 protection. And, as we noted before, this site would continue to enjoy Section 230 protection -- hard to see how that is not a competitive advantage.
@DeanBaker13 @mmasnick Mastodon is more popular in Europe. And servers are much more likely to be hosted in Europe (like the one I use) than the US. EU internet is covered by the DSA instead of section 230. The DSA requires much more moderation by social media and is more like the DMCA than section 230. The DSA has been in effect for over 6 months. Amazingly social media companies, including Mastodon, are still running in Europe despite the replacement of section 230 with DSA.
@DeanBaker13 it's this dismissive attitude that just really gets to me. "Obviously you would have to destroy your business and make it untenable to continue, just to make sure the biggest tech companies have no more competition" is what I hear when you say stuff like that.
Please, Dean, I beg of you: TALK TO PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY RUN A BUSINESS impacted by these laws. Stop dismissing real people. You're advocating for a policy that will do serious harm.
@DeanBaker13 already we get TONS of complaints. You say "oh you can just ignore the frivolous ones." You have no idea. Without 230, YOU CANNOT IGNORE THE FRIVOLOUS ONES because the FRIVOLOUS ONES TURN INTO LAWSUITS.
You ignored my earlier question: will you agree to pay my legal bills? These lawsuits each will cost in the low six figures just to get a dismissal.
230 is needed until there is strong, broad Federal SLAPP legislation, and probably still after that.
@mmasnick print and broadcast outlets get complaints too, yet somehow manage to survive. I'm not sure why you think your comments section would be uniquely fertile ground for potential defamation suits, especially since you could remove the threat simply by deleting the comment.
@mmasnick @DeanBaker13 Dean keeps saying your business will be unaffected just so long as it abandons its revenue stream. What businessman can possibly object to that?
@rst @mmasnick FWIW, I did not say no businesses would be affected. Many would be able change their business model, some would not. The issue here is how many sites that rely on advertising or selling personal info could not take responsibility for monitoring comments and ads (like print or broadcast outlets). I'm sure the ones impacted would not be zero, but the reality is no change is ever going to have zero negative consequences.
@DeanBaker13 @mmasnick Let's turn this around. Elon's explicit plan for Twitter is to pivot from ad-based revenue to subscription services, including add-ons like payments. (Their revenue from sale of user data is negligible.) That won't work for Elon because he's insane. But it might work for Zuck.
Would you be happy if it did? Of course not, because your goal is to hurt Facebook and Twitter. And you're so maniacally focused on that that you don't care if it kills any plausible competition.
@rst @mmasnick Neither of us knows if switching to a subscription model would work for Musk or Zuckerberg, but one thing I would be very confident predicting is that both sites would be much smaller as subscription-based sites. If that is the case, their moderation decisions have less impact, which would be a very good thing.
@DeanBaker13 @rst if that's your goal, why not just pass a law requiring fb/twitter to use subscriptions? or get broken up?
@DeanBaker13 @rst also, you know why it would make those sites smaller? because people who aren't well off and privileged like yourself, won't be able to afford to subscribe.
Very progressive of you.
@DeanBaker13 @rst they... can come here now too. why must the law deny them other sites?
@mmasnick @DeanBaker13 @rst
I’m disappointed in how so much of your argument taken the form of a personal attack, Mike. Pull yourself together.
@DeanBaker13 @mmasnick Funny thing. There *already is* a social media platform operating at larger scale than either FB or Twitter, funded primarily by fees for commercial services (though not the social media service itself; that's a loss leader for the other stuff): WeChat. They do take ads, but they'd be profitable without 'em -- in 3Q 2023, profit was ~$US6.4 billion; ad revenue ~$3.6B. https://static.www.tencent.com/uploads/2023/11/15/9e4da3187104bbdf04e2cbe491b75147.pdf
But their moderation is stricter than is common in the US. Maybe you'd like that.
@DeanBaker13 @mmasnick This, by the way, is Elon's explicit model for what he'd like to turn Twitter into. It won't work for Elon because by now, he's obviously crazy and there aren't enough potential customers who trust him. But if Zuck ever got away from trying to recreate 1990s sci-fi cliches (VR and AI), and made a serious run at Amazon and eBay, both of which are doing a lot to piss off their customers... many things could happen.
@mmasnick @DeanBaker13 I hope you don’t take this the wrong way as I’m a long time reader and appreciator of your work, but my read on this thread is that while your experience running Techdirt gives you a valuable perspective on how this stuff plays out in the micro, it also creates a pretty big conflict of interest. Are you really objectively evaluating the merits of this potential policy change or are you talking your own book?
@jjoelson @DeanBaker13 honestly, i rarely view it through the impact on me personally. but dean was insisting that there were no issues for smaller companies, so I was expressing my own example.
I have advocated for many things that I think are right, but which are bad for me at a business level (e.g., I'm against link taxes, which would make me money and I'm against paying to scrape, which would make me money).
Stick to economics dude. Stay in your lane lest you look more like a fool.
And it still doesn't seem like *defamation* is a big enough deal online to justify revoking Sec 230.
@mmasnick I'm also at a loss to understand the relevance of a lawsuit filed against material that you published directly -- this of course is not protected by Section 230.
@DeanBaker13 Part of the lawsuit was over comments. The judge ruled on 230 grounds.
@mmasnick hurling insults is not a great look
@PeoriaBummer I am stating my opinion.
@mmasnick @david1 @timjan @GreenFire Also, as I pointed out to you before, it seems that Facebook is worried about losing Section 230 protection, in spite of its fleet of lawyers https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/facebooks-pitch-congress-section-230-me-not-thee
@DeanBaker13 @david1 @timjan @GreenFire Facebook has literally been running ads non-stop in DC offering to get rid of 230.
@mmasnick @david1 @timjan @GreenFire That was not EFF's interpretation of Facebook's position. Perhaps they are wrong, but having yet what Facebook put out a couple of years back, it didn't sound like they were pushing for a complete repeal.
@DeanBaker13 @mmasnick @david1 @timjan @GreenFire
I mean your best bet is to offshore. It's funny that you'll be able to run more Techdirt safely from the EU, or a civil law country, but you would.
@DeanBaker13 @mmasnick @david1 @timjan @GreenFire
Anyway if you end up in France I can take you to some great wine bars 
@quinn @DeanBaker13 @mmasnick @timjan @GreenFire It would be pretty funny if someone who hates the DMCA voluntarily decides to be covered by the DSA.
@DeanBaker13 @mmasnick @timjan @GreenFire Let's take as an example of "smaller sites" video sharing sites - like YouTube but smaller. Examples are Vimeo, DTube, Dailymotion, etc. For these companies, DMCA compliance is important. One might expect these companies would be shut down because DMCA is stricter making compliance is too expensive. But this has not happened at all. The real problem is people prefer YouTube.
@david1 @DeanBaker13 @timjan @GreenFire if you're going to use that example, how about you talk about Veoh. Veoh was another competitor that actually got sued under the DMCA. And won.
But the cost of the lawsuit was too big and it shut down.
That's the future Dean seems to want.