Should Amazon Web services remove Twitter?

[tall73]

The law seem to me to have an intent that is about shielding for liability because the host of the service cannot know all that is going on.

Check out this example. The plaintiff notified Yahoo of a profile her ex had made containing nude photos of her, and requested it be taken down. They eventually agreed to take it down. But they didn't.

The court still found they were not liable based on section 230.

Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. - Wikipedia

However, they allowed her to recast her case as a tort claim based on their promise to do something that they did not then do. In other words, had they not promised to take it down, even if they knew it was there, they would not be liable.

Barnes v. Yahoo!, 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009)

 

[tall73]

Like a gray area, when they know what is happening.

That's where I'm speculating based on general principles.

One of the early cases, shortly after its passing, addressed this, Zeran vs. America Online

https://www.eff.org/files/zeran-v-aol.pdf

Zeran next contends that interpreting § 230 to impose liability on service providers with knowledge of defamatory content on their services is consistent with the statutory purposes outlined in Part IIA. Zeran fails, however, to understand the practical implications of notice liability in the interactive computer service context. Liability upon notice would defeat the dual purposes advanced by § 230 of the CDA. Like the strict liability imposed by the Stratton Oakmont court, liability upon notice reinforces service providers' incentives to restrict speech and abstain from self-regulation If computer service providers were subject to distributor liability, they would face potential liability each time they receive notice of a potentially defamatory statement —from any party, concerning any message. Each notification would require a careful yet rapid investigation of the circumstances surrounding the posted information, a legal judgment concerning the information's defamatory character, and an on-the-spot editorial decision whether to risk liability byallowing the continued publication of that information.

Although this might be feasible for the traditional print publisher, the sheer number of postings on interactive computer services would create an impossible burden in the Internet context. Cf. Auvil v. CBS 60 Minutes,800 F.Supp. 928, 931 (E.D.Wash.1992)(recognizing that it is unrealistic for network affiliates to "monitor incoming transmissions and exercise on-the-spot discretionary calls").

Because service providers would be subject to liability only for the publication of information, and not for its removal, they would have a natural incentive simply to remove messages upon notification, whether the contents were defamatory or not. See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps,475 U.S. 767, 777, 106 S.Ct. 1558, 1564, 89 L.Ed.2d 783 (1986)(recognizing that fears of unjustified liability produce a chilling effect antithetical to
First Amendment's protection of speech). Thus, like strict liability, liability upon notice has a chilling effect on the freedom of Internet speech.

Similarly, notice-based liability would deter service providers from regulating the dissemination of offensive material over their own services. Any efforts by a service provider to investigate and screen material posted on its service would only lead to notice of potentially defamatory material more frequently and thereby create a stronger basis for liability. Instead of subjecting themselves to further possible lawsuits, service providers would likely eschew any attempts at selfregulation.

More generally, notice-based liability for interactive computer service providers would provide third parties with a no-cost means to create the basis for future lawsuits. Whenever one was displeased with the speech of another party conducted overan interactive computer service, the offended party could simply "notify" the relevant service provider, claiming the information to be legally defamatory. In light of the vast amount of speech communicated through interactive computer services, these notices could produce an impossible burden for service providers, who would be faced with ceaseless choices of suppressing controversial speech or sustaining prohibitive liability. Because the probable effects of distributor liability on the vigor of Internet speech and on service provider self regulation are directly contrary to § 230's statutory purposes, we will not assume that Congress intended to leave liability upon notice intact.

 

[Halbhh]

Check out this example. The plaintiff notified Yahoo of a profile her ex had made containing nude photos of her, and requested it be taken down. They eventually agreed to take it down. But they didn't.

The court still found they were not liable based on section 230.

Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. - Wikipedia

However, they allowed her to recast her case as a tort claim based on their promise to do something that they did not then do. In other words, had they not promised to take it down, even if they knew it was there, they would not be liable.

Barnes v. Yahoo!, 570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009)

Do you know whether the wiki is correctly worded regarding the description in the wiki of Sec 230 requiring the party be "acting in good faith" --

"Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under §230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section 230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action."
Section 230 - Wikipedia

To me, that seems to rule out a situation where a party definitely knows as fact (not just a claim from someone else, but their own internal awareness by their own people) about an illegal activity, and then does nothing. If they do nothing and then enable the illegal activity that they definitely have internal awareness inside their own organization about, then they aren't in 'good faith' anymore, it seems to me, in that scenario. That's not quite the same as the yahoo user says there is some problem, and then a customer service representative says we'll take care of it, because the degree of definite knowledge isn't so provisional. For AWS with Parler, they know for sure (as shown by their actions (which were in good faith, and AWS is in the clear thereby)).

Of course, we'd not be discussing it if it was already so precise as to not allow any discussion:

"The DOJ issued their four major recommendations to Congress in June 2020 to modify Section 230. These include:[78][79]

1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
4. Promoting discourse and transparency by defining existing terms in the statute like "otherwise objectionable" and "good faith" with specific language ...

1. Section 230 - Wikipedia

But, consider: we all kinda know what "good faith" is in a general way. If a party (company, individual, etc.) becomes aware of something seriously harmful, with a clear definite awareness, and then whether or not they attempt to do something according to what they are aware of, or do nothing.

 

[tall73]

Do you know whether the wiki is correctly worded regarding the description in the wiki of Sec 230 requiring the party be "acting in good faith" --

"Section 230, as passed, has two primary parts both listed under §230(c) as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law. Section 230(c)(1), as identified above, defines that an information service provider shall not be treated as a "publisher or speaker" of information from another provider. Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action."
Section 230 - Wikipedia

To me, that seems to rule out a situation where a party definitely knows as fact (not just a claim from someone else, but their own internal awareness by their own people) about an illegal activity, and then does nothing. If they do nothing and then enable the illegal activity that they definitely have internal awareness inside their own organization about, then they aren't in 'good faith' anymore, it seems to me, in that scenario. That's not quite the same as the yahoo user says there is some problem, and then a customer service representative says we'll take care of it, because the degree of definite knowledge isn't so provisional. For AWS with Parler, they know for sure (as shown by their actions (which were in good faith, and AWS is in the clear thereby)).

Of course, we'd not be discussing it if it was already so precise as to not allow any discussion:

"The DOJ issued their four major recommendations to Congress in June 2020 to modify Section 230. These include:[78][79]

1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
4. Promoting discourse and transparency by defining existing terms in the statute like "otherwise objectionable" and "good faith" with specific language ...

1. Section 230 - Wikipedia

But, consider: we all kinda know what "good faith" is in a general way. If a party (company, individual, etc.) becomes aware of something seriously harmful, with a clear definite awareness, and then whether or not they attempt to do something according to what they are aware of, or do nothing.

The good faith clause is in relation to their efforts to remove harmful content.

They have not interpreted the first part that way. See my previous post.

The clause was meant to mean that merely removing offending content is not thereby transforming them from platform to editorial publisher. In other words, they wanted to give them liability protection for harmful content on their site submitted by others, but also allow them to moderate without this compromising the liability protections.

 

[timothyu]

Do you know whether the wiki is correctly worded

Just a reminder that Wiki (eg Wikipedia) is a mix of fact and opinion (fiction). For example, a person that a site is about may not correct what is written about him/her and if by chance they are able to find a way to, at any time someone else can come in and change it. Hardly factually reliable.

 

[Halbhh]

"....If computer service providers were subject to distributor liability, they would face potential liability each time they receive notice of a potentially defamatory statement —from any party, concerning any message. ..."

To me this sentence in the quote from the judge's Opinion seems a key sentence. i.e. -- "potentially defamatory statement" re "potentially"

Being notified isn't the same as a clear internal definite knowing. It's only a beginning of a possibility that there could later be knowledge, but only possibly.

@tall73

 

[Halbhh]

The good faith clause is in relation to their efforts to remove harmful content.

They have not interpreted the first part that way. See my previous post.

The clause was meant to mean that merely removing offending content is not thereby transforming them from platform to editorial publisher. In other words, they wanted to give them liability protection for harmful content on their site submitted by others, but also allow them to moderate without this compromising the liability.

For clarity let me say we completely agree on this part. So, I'm talking instead about other things above, though I'm still thinking it out loud also. 'Good faith' is a requirement for shielding. But to get that shielding, they have to be acting to counter (not perfectly, but doing something )about posts they know are harmful or planning violence, etc.

 

[Halbhh]

Just a reminder that Wikipedia is a mix of fact and opinion (fiction). For example, a person that a site is about may not correct what is written about him/her and if by chance they are able to find a way to, at any time someone else can come in and change it. Hardly factually reliable.

Quite. Be cautious not to jump to conclusions is my motto.
Wiki does have many poor entries and many excellent ones, I've found, when comparing to things I have a lot of other reading on.

 

[Halbhh]

..."Because service providers would be subject to liability only for the publication of information, and not for its removal, they would have a natural incentive simply to remove messages upon notification, whether the contents were defamatory or not. See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps,475 U.S. 767, 777, 106 S.Ct. 1558, 1564, 89 L.Ed.2d 783 (1986)(recognizing that fears of unjustified liability produce a chilling effect antithetical to
First Amendment's protection of speech). Thus, like strict liability, liability upon notice has a chilling effect on the freedom of Internet speech."

...

As an aside -- this paragraph of the judge's opinion was pretty interesting in itself! Who hasn't had a post removed they thought the moderator didn't really look at?

I do think it's clear tho that the main intent of 230 was to shield such as internet forums and allow moderation without requiring the moderation to be perfect. (So long as there is a good faith effort it seems, that is.)

 

[tall73]

To me this sentence in the quote from the judge's Opinion seems a key sentence. i.e. -- "potentially defamatory statement" re "potentially"

Being notified isn't the same as a clear internal definite knowing. It's only a beginning of a possibility that there could later be knowledge, but only possibly.

@tall73

It is part of the larger reasoning for their decision. They reasoned that the framers of the statute did not intend for internet service providers to have to rapidly assess on the fly the possibility that something could be defamatory. Rather they shielded them from that.

And if you read the details of the case that was actually being considered the statements were definitely defamatory, disgusting, and they really messed up the guy's life. But they still found that notice of this content did not then make the provider liable.

 

[Halbhh]

Helpful transcript --

In the email, Amazon Web Services’ Trust and Safety team told Parler chief policy officer Amy Peikoff that the platform continues to host “violent content” that violates AWS’ terms of service. AWS said it wasn’t satisfied with Parler’s attempts to moderate content on its platform and, as a result, would move to “suspend Parler’s account.”

“AWS provides technology and services to customers across the political spectrum, and we continue to respect Parler’s right to determine for itself what content it will allow on its site,” the letter states. “However, we cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others. Because Parler cannot comply with our terms of service and poses a very real risk to public safety, we plan to suspend Parler’s account effective Sunday, January 10th, at 11:59PM PST.”​

Amazon drops Parler from its web hosting service, citing violent posts

 

[tall73]

As an aside -- this paragraph of the judge's opinion was pretty interesting in itself! Who hasn't had a post removed they thought the moderator didn't really look at?

Yes....but surely not here!

 

[timothyu]

Wiki does have many poor entries and many excellent ones, I've found, when comparing to things I have a lot of other reading on.

Yes and more so today depending on whether the subject has suddenly come to the notice of the cancel squad who of course have taken mockery and discrediting to a new level. What is excellent one day can become poor the next.

 

[tall73]

To me this sentence in the quote from the judge's Opinion seems a key sentence. i.e. -- "potentially defamatory statement" re "potentially"

Being notified isn't the same as a clear internal definite knowing. It's only a beginning of a possibility that there could later be knowledge, but only possibly.

@tall73

It is part of the larger reasoning. The framers of the statute did not intend for internet service providers to have to rapidly assess on the fly the possibility that something could be defamatory.

And if you read the details of the case that was actually being deal

Just a reminder that Wiki (eg Wikipedia) is a mix of fact and opinion (fiction). For example, a person that a site is about may not correct what is written about him/her and if by chance they are able to find a way to, at any time someone else can come in and change it. Hardly factually reliable.

The Wiki was for background info. There was a second source in that post that gave more brief, but also more specific information.

It was the second source that discussed the recasting of the case on different grounds.

 

[Halbhh]

AWS told Parler in the email that it had flagged 98 examples to Parler of posts that “clearly encourage and incite violence.” Among the posts it reported to Parler, which were viewed by CNBC, users on the platform made violent threats directed at “liberal leaders, liberal activists #blm leaders and supporters,” in addition to other groups.

Screenshots of the Parler app viewed by CNBC show users posting references to firing squads, as well as calls to bring weapons to the presidential inauguration later this month.

Amazon drops Parler from its web hosting service, citing violent posts

 

[tall73]

Helpful transcript --

In the email, Amazon Web Services’ Trust and Safety team told Parler chief policy officer Amy Peikoff that the platform continues to host “violent content” that violates AWS’ terms of service. AWS said it wasn’t satisfied with Parler’s attempts to moderate content on its platform and, as a result, would move to “suspend Parler’s account.”

“AWS provides technology and services to customers across the political spectrum, and we continue to respect Parler’s right to determine for itself what content it will allow on its site,” the letter states. “However, we cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others. Because Parler cannot comply with our terms of service and poses a very real risk to public safety, we plan to suspend Parler’s account effective Sunday, January 10th, at 11:59PM PST.”​

Amazon drops Parler from its web hosting service, citing violent posts

Yes, though in that case they should drop Twitter as well.

 

[Pommer]

Yes, though in that case they should drop Twitter as well.

Is this a legal or a market question, though?

 

[tall73]

Dropping Parler was a business decision made by a private company, as was the decision for the myriad of social media platforms to ban Trump. If you think these users and platforms are entitled to a space online, you’ll have to publicize — or socialize — the social media industry. I’m all for that, but I thought you people believed in a free, unregulated market consisting of private businesses rather than government-run programs. Is this a flip-flop?

No, it is a failure to read the whole thread, or understand my position.

 

[Halbhh]

To update my answer to the OP post with a different wording, more concise, I think:

AWS may reasonably continue to serve Twitter -- unlike Parler -- exactly or only because it appears as if Twitter is making a good faith effort to moderate.

(and so long as that continues also)

Which is inevitably imperfect, by the very nature of the internet, for one.

But so long as it is a good faith effort, then it's reasonable for AWS to simply continue to require such.

And it was reasonable for them to stop serving Parler when Parler broke the the contractual terms of service (see post #71 above), and didn't repair that.

 

[tall73]

Is this a legal or a market question, though?

I already described earlier how it may be a market decision.

They are in a bad position because politicians from both sides want to regulate. It likely was as much about the election as the riot. Those in power now have expressed more interest in modifying section 230 to make providers more responsible for illegal content, hate speech, etc.

By removing a glaring example they may be trying to head off action that would hurt them in the long run. If section 230 were modified in that way it could put that whole business sector in danger.

Previously they were dealing with a different administration that was more concerned with revising section 230 due to issues with the good samaritan aspect of content editing, alleging that they were limiting speech and viewpoints.