A banned user makes some constructive comments about fixing problems within Wikipedia. Some are instantly addressed. Others languish.

The section above that is ''Let's watch Wikipedians make fun of Gregory Kohs!''. Could you please document where Raul got confused and erroneously called you a "fool or a liar". It's especially pertinent in light of his recent RFA vote, as you've noted here.

UseOnce already did the documentary work, so there's not a lot of need to repeat it on my Talk page, is there?

I'm not sure this is strictly on-topic, but it was on that same page, so...

{{cite}}?

More specifically, and you'll all have to excuse me for saying this, but he is pulling this directly out of his arse, isn't he? Based on what I've gleaned in my two years of studying this problem, both sentences in that statement are completely false, though I suppose one could make a quasi-philosophical argument in favor of the first one. The truth, of course, being that prior to Section 230, there simply were no legislative directives on the issue, leaving the courts to decide each case individually - which only resulted in constant "forum-shopping" and "venue-jockeying" by litigants, to an almost absurd degree.

Again, this law was promulgated back in the days when you had to know the nuts and bolts of the HTML Common Gateway Interface to allow for visitor comments at all, and you couldn't economically run a database on a server you didn't own, and easy-to-install-via-Fantastico open-source webserver and CMS software simply didn't exist. There's almost no question that Section 230 was intended to indemnify ISP's, particularly the smaller ones that were sprouting up all over the place, and was never meant to apply to individual websites. All it needed was a simple clause denying the same indemnification to website operators, but nobody even considered that at the time - the technology had barely gotten off the ground. There were still lots of people around who thought the web would be a "passing fad."

I know I've probably posted this several dozen times, but it bears repeating: Technology moves too fast these days to think of relevant legislation outside of its historical context, even if the word "historical" means 10 or 15 years ago. I've always had rather mixed feelings about Mr. WAS 4.250, but normally he's better about this sort of thing, at least.

230 started early back with SGML, AOL, Compueserve, Usenet, etc. By the time it became effective, it was already outdated. It wasn't well written for the intended usage, so most of it got striked-out .

If 230 were different in the way that some people want it to be, simply banning someone or having a badwords filter would make you responsible for everything anyone ever said on WR.

Yes, but it's a double standard. Newpapers are respsonsible for what they print in Letters to the Editor. Magazines are responsible for content written by contract authors, etc. It wouldn't be fair to hold a website responsible for what unmoderated people post on it between the time they post and somebody reasonable has time to look at it (of if it's unmoderated, that might be "never"), but beyond that time, you need to hold sites responsible for things they take responsibility FOR. Let them choose. If they deny responsiblity, then let them give up control in proportion.

Look, I can't post whatever I want on WP. They ultimately won't LET me. They have absolute power over content, and would argue to the death that it's their property, their content, and theirs to do with whatever they choose, and I have NO say and NO right to put what I want there.

But if somebody else (after all this is said and done) wants to hold WP responsible for the final outcome of what they have on there over times of the length that they have already claimed to have complete and ulimate power over content, they'll say "Sec 230!. We're merely an interactive service. It's not OUR content, because we didn't originate it. We just host it and others originate it." Well, others originate it and others edit it, and that power is delegated by WMF. Just as a magazine may delegate editorial power over the letters the Editor page to their Editing staff. That should not get them off the hook, any more than any corporation should get off the hook entirely for something one of its employees does, that they could "reasonably" have been watching better, to make sure it doesn't happen too often.

Well, one way or the other. I don't care. But something very basic in me demands that people should take responsibility for the measure (whatever measure that might be) that they have control. WP wants ALL the control, NONE of the responsiblity. That's just wrong. I don't care if the law hasn't caught up, yet. It's STILL wrong.

Sorry, if a publication like National Enquirer can legally operate (with financial success) without protection from Section 230, then there has to be a way to revise Section 230 to better address the responsibilities of online publishers who are, when you get right down to it, not "interactive computer services".

Yep. Basically, not PAYING your editors doesn't make you NOT a publisher! If you delegate total content control to your editors, you're a publisher.

If I went to court to argue that I should be able to put whatever I want on WP, they'd actually argue that they ARE a publisher, and therefore can say "no." Wanna bet?

Who would show up in court?

Your Average Prefrontally Prepared Proselyte (YAP³) of the Wiki-Φaith would point to the far horizon and parrot as only a parrot-bot can that it's really the Unseen Hand And Oversoul Of Vall that spurned your sacrilegious prayer.

U R, As They Say, Talkin 2 The Hand …

Jon

Agreed, but if you think things are messed up now, wait until the government gets more involved.