Changes in Section 230 and Craigslist

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
Post Reply
User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Changes in Section 230 and Craigslist

Post by Auggie » Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:38 pm

So I heard somewhere a new law was passed to prevent sex trafficking and now Craigslist has pulled its personals section.

Anyone know much about this?

How will it affect Wikipedia?

User avatar
The Joy
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:08 am

Re: Changes in Section 230 and Craigslist

Post by The Joy » Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:41 am

Auggie wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:38 pm
So I heard somewhere a new law was passed to prevent sex trafficking and now Craigslist has pulled its personals section.

Anyone know much about this?

How will it affect Wikipedia?
Quite a lot, actually:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180 ... -you.shtml
t isn't just the big commercial services like Facebook who need Section 230, but Internet service providers of all sorts of shapes and sizes, including broadband ISPs, email providers, online marketplaces, consumer review sites, fan forums, online publications that host user comments… Section 230 even enables non-commercial sites like Wikipedia. As a giant collection of information other people have provided, if Section 230’s protection evaporates, then so will Wikipedia's ability to provide this valuable resource.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Really, what we want now, is not laws against crime, but a law against insanity. That is where the true evil lies." -Mark Twain

User avatar
The Joy
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:08 am

Re: Changes in Section 230 and Craigslist

Post by The Joy » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:17 am

To be honest, I think it's more of a concern that FOSTA will the first of a thousand cuts to Section 230 and eventually lead Wikipedia open to criminal and civil suits. It would be against Wikipedia's Terms of Service and community policies to have personals or anything remotely related to the sex trade, which is the primary purpose of the law, if I'm understanding it correctly.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Really, what we want now, is not laws against crime, but a law against insanity. That is where the true evil lies." -Mark Twain

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Changes in Section 230 and Craigslist

Post by Auggie » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:32 pm

The end of that article was a little alarmist. I don't think anyone is going to get in trouble for forwarding emails.

But yeah, it's starting to look like Section 230 is a failed law. It was supposed to make it easier for service providers to step in and voluntarily do the right thing once in a while. You could moderate a tiny fraction of your site in good faith, and that wouldn't be taken to mean that you were responsible for every other thing that happened on the site. So for example, Craigslist could have nuked its obvious sex-trafficking subforums without taking on responsibility for every other criminal activity facilitated by their service.

The WMF and Craigslist took Section 230 to mean they should never moderate anything, because why should they if they are protected either way. They're really messing things up by not self-regulating to a better degree. It's only a matter of time before the government steps in further.

User avatar
The Joy
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:08 am

Re: Changes in Section 230 and Craigslist

Post by The Joy » Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:30 am

I am waiting for the day it's proven somehow that Wikipedia greatly influenced a major election with "fake news" and there are real calls for more regulation of it like Facebook is going through right now.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Really, what we want now, is not laws against crime, but a law against insanity. That is where the true evil lies." -Mark Twain

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Changes in Section 230 and Craigslist

Post by Auggie » Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:37 pm

The Joy wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:30 am
I am waiting for the day it's proven somehow that Wikipedia greatly influenced a major election with "fake news" and there are real calls for more regulation of it like Facebook is going through right now.
I'm not a huge fan of Facebook, but I think this whole "fake news" and russian collusion meme is a little unfair. Facebook is a social network site, and it should be commonly assumed that it's going to be full of crap and misinformation. Wikipedia is more guilty of presenting itself as something to be taken more seriously.

User avatar
The Joy
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:08 am

Re: Changes in Section 230 and Craigslist

Post by The Joy » Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:11 pm

If we taught information literacy in our schools, everyone in their right mind would know that any website or source of information needs to be scrutinized and analyzed before accepting it as fact. There wouldn't even be a need for Wikipedia criticism websites since no one would take Wikipedia seriously.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Really, what we want now, is not laws against crime, but a law against insanity. That is where the true evil lies." -Mark Twain

Proabivouac
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Changes in Section 230 and Craigslist

Post by Proabivouac » Sun Apr 08, 2018 5:38 am

Auggie wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:32 pm
But yeah, it's starting to look like Section 230 is a failed law. It was supposed to make it easier for service providers to step in and voluntarily do the right thing once in a while. You could moderate a tiny fraction of your site in good faith, and that wouldn't be taken to mean that you were responsible for every other thing that happened on the site. So for example, Craigslist could have nuked its obvious sex-trafficking subforums without taking on responsibility for every other criminal activity facilitated by their service.
Not quite. It was meant to protect service providers such as Prodigy, AOL and Comcast. This is the correct policy inasmuch as the phone company should not be responsible for what you say over the phone – if anything one might argue that they should be forbidden from "voluntarily do[ing] the"right thing" by yanking someone's phone service for saying somthing they don't like. The same should apply to email providers, as this is really just a utility and it is certainly not a publication.

The mistake was extending it to what are in essence publishers, albeit with non-traditional models of editorial control. Some things might be ambiguous in this respect, such a blog host which runs as a part of an email interface, but Wikipedia isn't even close.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Changes in Section 230 and Craigslist

Post by Auggie » Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:49 pm

The Joy wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:11 pm
If we taught information literacy in our schools, everyone in their right mind would know that any website or source of information needs to be scrutinized and analyzed before accepting it as fact. There wouldn't even be a need for Wikipedia criticism websites since no one would take Wikipedia seriously.
Exactly. Now big brother wants to take over the interwebs to keep our fragile brains safe. It's a scary time.
Proabivouac wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 5:38 am
Not quite. It was meant to protect service providers such as Prodigy, AOL and Comcast. This is the correct policy inasmuch as the phone company should not be responsible for what you say over the phone – if anything one might argue that they should be forbidden from "voluntarily do[ing] the"right thing" by yanking someone's phone service for saying somthing they don't like. The same should apply to email providers, as this is really just a utility and it is certainly not a publication.

The mistake was extending it to what are in essence publishers, albeit with non-traditional models of editorial control. Some things might be ambiguous in this respect, such a blog host which runs as a part of an email interface, but Wikipedia isn't even close.
Except Prodigy and AOL were much more than dial up modem access. They offered forums, groups, messaging, basically places for people with like interests to congregate. Not altogether different from what Facebook is doing now.

There is precedent for this. Google will yank your free email if they find out you're using it for business purposes and sending too many emails.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests