zlacker

This might be an unpopular opinion but I always thought we might be better off without Web 2.0 where site owners aren’t held responsible for user content

If you’re hosting content, why shouldn’t you be responsible, because your business model is impossible if you’re held to account for what’s happening on your premises?

Without safe harbor, people might have to jump through the hoops of buying their own domain name, and hosting content themselves, would that be so bad?

>>jazzyj+(OP)
What about webmail, IM, or any other sort of web-hosted communication? Do you honestly think it would be better if Google were responsible for whatever content gets sent to a gmail address?

>>pdpi+Ra
Messages are a little different than hosting public content but sure, a service provider should know its customers and stop doing business with any child sex traffickers planning parties over email.

I would prefer 10,000 service providers to one big one that gets to read all the plaintext communication of the entire planet.

>>jazzyj+(OP)
You know this site would not be possible without those protections, right?

>>jazzyj+(OP)
Any app allowing any communication between two users would be illegal.

>>jazzyj+Hk
They'd all have to read your emails to ensure you don't plan child sex parties. Whenever a keyword match comes up, your account will immediately be deleted.

>>direwo+Ul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat

You have to understand that Europe doesn't give a shit about techbro libertarians and their desire for a new Lamborghini.

>>expedi+Ys
EncroChat was illegal because it was targeted at drug dealers, advertised for use in drug dealing. And they got evidence by texting "My associate got busted dealing drugs. Can you wipe his device?" and it was wiped. There's an actual knowledge component which is very important here.

>>jazzyj+Hk
In a world where hosting services are responsible that way, their filtering would need to be even more sensitive than it is today, and plenty of places already produce unreasonable amounts of false positives.

As it stands, I have a bunch of photos on my phone that would almost certainly get flagged by over-eager/overly sensitive child porn detection — close friends and family sending me photos of their kids at the beach. I've helped bathe and dress some of those kids. There's nothing nefarious about any of it, but it's close enough that services wouldn't take the risk, and that would be a loss to us all.

>>termin+3l
On the contrary HN is one of the most heavily moderated forums out here and serves as a great example of a right-size community where sex trafficking is not happening under the nose of an ambivalent host

(Snark aside, in your opinion are there comments on HN that dang would be criminally liable for if it weren't for safe harbor?)