Re: Some web sites collect salacious gossip and charge $2000 to remove it

Tom,
In the early 90's, I created an ISP (MedioNet) serving Seattle and
other parts of the Pacific Northwest. Having done so, I was almost
immediately terrified that I would be held responsible for the stuff that
people were doing with the service. I wanted to "censor" stuff, but lawyers
said that if I censored anything, I could be held responsible for
everything I didn't censor -- as well as various claims from those who I
did censor. For instance, I wanted to refuse to carry a number of
newsgroups that were filled with garbage instead of just carrying the full
list. (Do you remember newsgroups?) Thus, I was very happy when Section 230
became law since it allowed me to get rid of the worst stuff without being
held responsible for what I didn't find. Without Section 230, I'm not sure
how anyone would be able to host unmoderated user content. But, moderating
all user generated content would be so expensive that no one would be able
to provide services.

I suspect that eliminating Section 230 will cause more problems than it
solves. The treatment may be worse than the disease.

bob wyman


On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 6:03 PM Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Rather than talk about what Google could or should do, I would like to
> talk about results and how to get them.  I believe it is apparent that
> section 230 has resulted in pretty awful behavior that should not exist in
> an inclusive society. So the point is that  words have consequences. I hope
> we all agree on that. Now the question is should the publisher of the words
> suffer consequences of the behavior that results from the words. The
> publisher makes money from the act of publishing the words, so they are the
> most likely target of any sort of fix. Asking the victim to pay to correct
> the consequences while the publisher makes money from the words just seem
> wrong. (Here I make the leap that Google should be recognized as the
> publisher.)
>
> Be the change you want to see in the world ..tom
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 2:45 PM Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote:
>
>> As a demonstration, I've annotated one of the apparently false claims
>> about Guy Babock. To see that annotation, follow this link
>> <https://hyp.is/Tsf7LmNMEeuhvCu-FzSNYA/dirtyscam.com/reports/guy-babcock-is-a-paedophile-guy-sanderson-babcock-is-a-paedophile-guy-babcock-is-a-pedophile-guy-sanderson-babcock-is-a-pedophile-who-let-guy-babcock-out-of-his-cage-guy-babcock-is-a-soc/>
>> .
>>
>> If more people knew that annotation was possible, and if better support
>> for making it was available, do you think it would help reduce the
>> frequency of these problems?
>>
>> bob wyman
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 5:30 PM Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom,
>>> When you write "Google, et. al. encourages this type of behavior" are
>>> you saying that you believe that Google *intentionally* encourages this
>>> behavior or simply that the availability of powerful search tools, such as
>>> those provided by Google, tends to encourage this behavior by making it
>>> more possible? Please forgive my asking, but, on the Internet, it is
>>> sometimes hard to tell exactly what someone's words mean...
>>>
>>> For the record, the Times article does indicate that Google is, and has
>>> been, willing to help address these issues:
>>>
>>>> "Until recently, Google would remove a website from your results only
>>>> if it could cause financial damage, such as by exposing your Social
>>>> Security number. Now *Google will remove other harmful content*,
>>>> including revenge porn and private medical information. At the end of 2019,
>>>> it introduced a new category of information it will take out of your
>>>> results: “sites with exploitative removal practices.” *Google also
>>>> started down-ranking some of the “complaint” sites*, including Ripoff
>>>> Report." [Emphasis added.]
>>>
>>>
>>> What more do you think they should or could do?
>>>
>>> Part of the problem here is that those who are accused on
>>> these "complaint" sites have no way to respond in place to the claims that
>>> are made against them. But, we could fix that. It seems to me that the
>>> Babcock's, and others, would have benefited from tools that allowed them to
>>> annotate the improper posts with their own discoverable statements
>>> contesting the claims made. A combination of the W3C Annotation Standard +
>>> (CredWeb and/or ClaimReview) would allow that. For instance, an extension
>>> to Hypothes.is, or a variant, could facilitate entering structured data
>>> annotations such as ClaimReview statements. If such annotations were made,
>>> then users of web browsers might be able to see a warning flag saying
>>> "Contents of this page are disputed" even if neither the complaint author
>>> nor the site itself provided a means to contest complaints. What do you
>>> think?
>>>
>>> bob wyman
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 2:59 PM Tom Jones <thomasclinganjones@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/30/technology/change-my-google-results.html
>>>>
>>>> Not sure why, but Google, et al. encourages this type of behavior. As
>>>> long as lies work, lies will proliferate.  It seems like Google should be
>>>> the one to pay the $2000 rip off.
>>>>
>>>> Be the change you want to see in the world ..tom
>>>>
>>>