The headline seems to be....quite accurate. What a terrible job by Sixty Minutes.
Then again, Sixty Minutes has a long history of making stuff up, lying about it, or peddling other peoples lies without bothering to investigate (eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes#Controversies), so perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised...
I was going to say the same thing about mainstream journalism in general using the misrepresentation of the gender wage gap and deception like the Katie Couric thing a couple years ago. Thanks for posting the specific 60 Minutes link!
Why is this being downvoting? For years the media was representing the gender wage gap as being a man and women in the same job with all attributes other than gender being equal (even Obama said this during a state of the union). That clearly isn't what the BLS study says (difference in occupations drive the wage gap on an aggregate level).
Because the narrative comes first, facts always are second.
It's been said quite blatantly that it doesn't matter that the statistics might not back up the claim because "there is obviously a problem", this has been going on for decades...
To clarify: "difference in occupations drive the wage gap on an aggregate level" - This is the largest driver in the aggregate level, but not the only one. The media presentation was still absolutely untrue, but there's a good argument for a real (albeit much smaller) gap when accounting for "all attributes other than gender being equal"
I suppose that is one interpretation. The distribution of the controversies is skewed to the recent years though. 14 in the past 34 years seems kind of high to me. What changed that they went from 0 controversies in the first 18 years to this current level?
According to the same 60 Minutes Wikipedia article linked to at the start of this comment chain, there have been 2,325 episodes of 60 Minutes that have aired.
14 is only 0.6% of 2,325, so (assuming each controversy stems from one episode) less than 1% of their episodes have generated controversy.
Edit: That said, also according to the linked Wiki article, there have been only 13 aired controversies (the last one is an internal issue). The updated percentage is 0.56%.
>What are the numbers since '86 when the controversies started?
Without the exact number of episodes that have aired since then, I cannot answer that question.
>Have they issued corrections for them?
It seems to me that you only skimmed the Wikipedia article to get a total count of controversies and to determine the dates around when they occurred. It would probably do you some good to take just a few minutes to read through them so that you better understand the nuance of them, the actual severity of the issues, and whether or not they issued corrections, retractions, etc.
In fact if you had read through them, you'd have noticed that the last one isn't a controversy about any aired content at all but is rather an internal issue, so there have only been 13 controversies.
And if you read it you would see that some of these controversies spanned multiple episodes, rendering your calculation moot.
This isn't a pissing contest. I believe 60 Minutes is of low journalistic/information quality (low value content/investigation, controversies in recent years, only some corrections, partial retractions, removal of content without issuing a correction/reason). It sounds like you have a different opinion - seemingly that an unknown number of episodes (14 or greater) over the course of over 2300 episodes and their actions/inactions related to them does not tarnish their reputation. And that's fine.
You’re right, that’s totally fine - if that were the case. As it happens, you seem to be misinterpreting/misunderstanding my posts. I don’t have an opinion one way or another about 60 Minutes, and nowhere in my responses have I offered one.
All that happened was that I saw you say that 14 issues “seems kind of high”, I got curious about how that compared with the total number of episodes aired, did the math and then shared the data. At best, my response was a suggestion that your “kind of high” claim didn’t line up with the data available to us at the time. Your subsequent responses, however, flagged some things for me; while you suggest that 60 Minutes has “low journalistic integrity/information quality”, your responses seem to demonstrate the same lack of attention to detail.
First, your initial post demonstrated that you simply counted Wiki sub-headings instead of reading about them to see if they actually counted as a “controversy” relevant to your point. One of the controversies listed was limited to internal sexual assault issues and, as far as we are aware, doesn’t have anything to do with on-air controversies or failures of journalistic integrity. I also mentioned that you should better understand the nuance of some of the issues because for instance, in the case of “Alar”, the issue was that the program highlighted a concern around a chemical used on apples, and sales of apples plummeted. The EPA ended up banning the same chemical the year that the program aired, so beyond apple sales plummeting there wasn’t much “controversy” that I can see. Because this specific comment chain was about the program “making stuff up, lying about it, or peddling other peoples lies”, I’m not sure whether or not the Alar/apple “controversy” actually falls in line with that specific concern.
In addition, your last response says that, “if you read it you would see some of these controversies spanned multiple episodes”, but that’s a lie - none of the controversies “spanned multiple episodes”. Let’s review:
- “Unintended Acceleration” aired on November 23, 1986, no mention of multiple episodes
- “Alar” aired in February 1989, no mention of multiple episodes
- “Werner Erhard” aired on March 3, 1991, no mention of multiple episodes
- “Brown & Williamson” aired in 1995, no mention of multiple episodes
- “US Customs Service” aired in 1997, no mention of multiple episodes
- “Kennewick Man” aired on October 25, 1998, no mention of multiple episodes
- “Viacom/CBS Cross-Promotion”, accusations of the program promoting books/films/interviews of value to sister company Viacom, but doesn’t mention “making stuff up, lying about it,” etc. nor does it say that those spanned multiple episodes
- “Killian Documents Controversy” aired on September 8, 2004, neither the 60 Minutes wiki page nor the linked Killian controversy page mentions multiple episodes
- “Benghazi Report” aired on October 27, 2013, no mention of multiple episodes
- “NSA Report” aired on December 15, 2013, no mention of multiple episodes
- “Tesla Automaker Report” aired on March 23, 2014, no mention of multiple episodes
Ultimately, I don’t have a problem with the fact that you don’t think 60 Minutes meets your standard of journalistic integrity. I also don’t have an opinion about the program myself. One doesn’t have to be defending something, or showing support for it, if they’re simply pointing out that data might not jive with a claim and that there is more nuance involved than someone seems to suggest.
My concern simply lies in the fact that you’re berating an outlet for not doing their due diligence with regard to the facts at hand, when you yourself are quite guilty of doing the same thing, continuing even after it was suggested that you hadn’t read the data you were using to back up your claims. You’re right, it’s not a pissing contest; I believe people should thoroughly read through anything they use to back up their claims, and it sounds like you have a different opinion.
"your “kind of high” claim didn’t line up with the data available to us at the time."
On what basis? The cutoff is subjective. To you, your (incorrect) .6% might seem to be low, but to me, that might seem high.
You mention the Viacom controversy, but dismiss it because it's not lying and wrongly imply that reasoning as being my position. You also quote me about "journalistic integrity". One does not have to lie to be of low journalistic integrity. The Viacom controversy fits the complaint of low journalistic integrity and spans multiple years.
"I believe people should thoroughly read through anything they use to back up their claims, and it sounds like you have a different opinion."
I do believe people need to read and understand anything they are discussing. It's wrong of you to create these ad hominem attacks, and quite ironic as well.
They also passed one particularly important test in the form of Donald Trump storming off mid-interview, so they can't be all that bad - the man is genuinely braindead.
The one with Fauci where he reveals he has to have security is genuinely disturbing.
I watched the piece. Here are the basic points it made (which I agree with):
- Pre-internet, generally speaking the only entities capable of widely spreading facts about private individuals were things you could sue for defamation or libel: newpapers, tv stations etc.
- Now Twitter, Facebook and YouTube can spread defamatory information about anyone without paying a similar price.
- It's true that the services will eventually accede to taking the content down (although in one case, that of a woman murdered on camera, it seemed to have proved difficult/impossible to fully do so given all the reposts).
- But they let it be put it up there in the first place! Once its up, all the damage to someone's life can be done in a day.
The phone company doesn’t moderate content. I think what blurs is that social media companies aren’t just dumb pipes (like cloud flare), they all have different levels of moderation based on what they decide and not only block content, but also promote content.
I think if they were just going to be ISPs then 230 should apply, but it seems odd that a company can select a piece of content and show it to a million people and then not be responsible. And then alternately, they can choose to remove content due to automated and manual rules, not required by law. It seems like they should either be regulated or not.
It seems off that if I solicit articles from random and print them out and mail them, I’m liable for libel. But if I review them all and publish them on a server then I’m no longer liable.
SMS spam is illegal. Phone companies also turn off service for fraud, etc.
To be more precise, phone companies only block based on regulators and consistent (at least theoretically) rules based on legal authorities given to regulators.
You pay the phone company for a service. They have certain obligations they need to uphold in exchange for payment.
New media isn't paid for by its consumers. Their computer, their rules. Nobody is wringing their hands over the decades of censorship by broadcast radio and television for "community standards".
Regulations on phone companies isn’t based on whether I pay them. In my state, phone lines must dial 911 even if there’s no customer. That’s because of regulation. And I don’t pay them anything.
I don’t think the need for regulation depends much on how much I pay to use the service or whether the publisher is responsible for content.
Another example is that even publishers of free newspapers get sued for libel.
While I agree you shouldn't be able to sue service providers, I think it is different because Twitter and Facebook recommend things for you to read and amplify the message.
The recommendation/amplification aspect is what needs liability.
If 60 Minutes interviews the US President, and the US President says that a pandemic is not dangerous, and viewers rely on that statement to the detriment of their respiratory systems, should the injured viewers or their estates be able to sue 60 Minutes for amplifying the US President's untrue and harmful statements?
No. They are, quite literally, reporting the truth. They are reporting EXACTLY what the president said.
It isn't their job --at least not what I think the job the US Constitution should protect-- to create their own version of what he said, embellish it or modify it in any way, in support or opposition.
I don't want news anchors to creatively interpret reality for me. I want facts. The interpretation is mine, not theirs. Most of them are politically biased liars.
Is it acceptable for 60 Minutes to choose who they put on their show? If, in their judgement, the US President is saying something that is false or dangerous, are they within their rights to say so, or to decline to broadcast that segment at all?
What about bookstores? They make recommendations too. Imagine if every used bookstore had to send every book they resold to a lawyer to make sure it didn't defame anyone.
You can wager that the human involved with book recommendations will do a better job than an algorithm trying to show you metaphorical train derailments or car accidents 24/7
In brief searching I could not find a case where this was true. I don't think bookstores have a duty to read and fact check every book they sell in order to insure that no third party is damaged. It appears to me that they have a duty to the whomever they bought the books with to adhere to whatever contract they signed and a duty to the buyer to provide what the buyer paid for in terms of it actually being Stephen King's IT and not for example the result of their cat walking over their keyboard printed on 597 pages.
It doesn't appear that they even have a duty to the buyer for it to be a good and useful work.
The duty you want to imagine is real would seem to be impossible to reasonably provide because the cost of paying out every time they were wrong would mean books would all cost $500 and in turn the book stores would all shut down. The only viable way to sell books would be to run a website overseas in a less insane jurisdiction selling epubs.
If you wanted to take it to the next level and enforce liability for anything that goes over the wire you could just give up 99.9% of content in the universe?
They absolutely aren't treated the same as publishers: "Thus, newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters are liable for republication of libel or slander because they have editorial control over their communications. On the other hand, bookstores, libraries, and other distributors of material are liable for republication only if they know, or had reason to know, that the statement is defamatory."
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law...
In other words: they aren't expected to have actually read every word of every book they sell. Publishers, newspapers, etc, are. But if a book defames me on page 154, the law doesn't hold the bookstore responsible unless it knew. Once it does know, you could probably sue. But that's not the same as treating it like a publisher- it's a different standard.
maybe we could have a system where if the company is open source/transparent with their recommendation engine and data they are free from liability, but if they profit off the recommendation/notification content they are liable.
profit motive for recommendation/amplification is probably what damages humans at scale
> Do you think phone service providers should be sued for conversations their subscribers have?
If they have even an incidental financial benefit from this behavior and take human or algorithmic steps to encourage it on their platform, then yes.
> Also without it you could sue companies like cloud flare, aws or anyone providing hosting infrastructure.
And yet, telephone companies were explicitly not liable under previous doctrine without 230 even existing. The idea of a "common carrier" far predates section 230.
I think it's fair to ask if companies like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Youtube should honestly deserve that common carrier status.
Phone services are not publishing. They are also not curating content, promoting speech. The broadcast methods that are available using the phone (robocalls, phone banks) are the same for everyone, and rely only on money and not on algorithmic measures of engage-ability.
If a TV station had a call in show where the callers were pre-screened to be slanderous, would that be an example of a publisher or a common carrier?
I don't know the answers but it's not so obviously clear cut as running the pipes.
>> You can still sue the poster. Section 230 just means you cant sue the service provider for defamation and slander.
That presumes the account can be traced to a real person.
I'm all for having solid end to end identity verification, but that opens a lot of doors governments and companies dont want us to have. For one it makes end to end encryption easy, as its equivalent to ensuring you aren't being MITMed.
Mandated identification is an even more terrifying idea. I already stop signing up for a site when the ask for a phone number. Last thing I want is to make easier for companies to track me.
Not only that I think anonymity is important. Without you could also just as easily be threatened or harassed by people online. It cut both ways.
Even then you normal would not sue the company providing the radio broadcasting equipment. Just the production making that particular radio content. Some times they were the same, but they could be different entities.
Section 230 also protects those providing infrastructure for the internet as they do not have common carrier status. Also where do you draw the line between hosting and not? I can use twitter and many other sites to host images. Alot these sites grew out of an easier to use means to host content.
Like what about sites like word-press and medium that also provide easy to use platforms for blogging. Should only the technically inclined be allowed to get hosting?
That's not true, though. Pre-internet bookstores could sell libelous books without being liable for their contents. You can't sue Barnes and Noble for selling books that defame you, you have to sue the author.
Section 230 extends that regime to websites that host other people's content.
You can sue them to have known libel removed from their shelves, but their exposure is not the same as the publisher unless for some reason they do not actually remove it.
B&N makes way more moderation decisions than an ISP, they promote books, they recommend books, they lay out a store so you can browse the different books on offer. They aren't a dumb pipe like a good ISP.
Specialty bookstores are even less like an ISP, they might restrict themselves to one or a handful of genres. Leftist bookstores have an ideological filter. And so on. None of them are like ISPs at all.
It would be weird to make Medium treated like a publisher for hosting a defamatory blog post while a bookstore selling a bound copy of the same content would not be. That's why section 230 is a thing!
For all that "don't read the comments" seems to be common knowledge in the tech community, we have a collective blind spot about the product design choices we make that amplify annonymous, un-vetted, un-sourced claims.
Almost all our tech media products default to treating things as "this is good enough to broadcast to the world until someone proves we should take it down" instead of defaulting to "this is probably low-value dreck that's not worth much distribution."
This is certainly easier from a product design perspective... but does it really make sense?
I don't think think this really solves the issue of content quality like the original comment was addressing.
However, I do think it's a step in the right direction and makes sense. After all, if your platform is promoting specific content by your own actions/volition, then it's no longer just content posted by some user, but it's now being used or reposted/linked by the company that owns the platform for monetary gain (I would guess ToS would solidify this with some boilerplate statement saying they can use your content to make money and to promote the platform etc).
Decouple discovery (e.g., suggesting posts from new users or paid ads) from the protections afforded to dumb carriers/hosting services (i.e., posts received from users you follow or are engaged in a discussion with).
Are you basically saying to remove protections from platforms that take an active role in the content propagation, Like Facebook ranking algorithms? If so, I agree that this would be a step in the right direction. But what paradigm replaces the original comment's statement that platforms treat all content as good instead of vetting it for quality? I'm skeptical of how we could have a system that vets for quality without introducing more/other issues. That's what I wanted to learn more about.
Completely agree with you. FB and Twitter can (and have) destroyed peoples lives in more ways than one.
Knowing about history can be important when evaluating and thinking about some of these ideas. Most people I have seen posting comments to your comment are rehashing arguments that were at the core of the Cubby v. CompuServe some thirty years ago.
FB and Twitter MODERATE and control everything on their systems. This places them in a position of responsibility. While IANAL, I think I can say this is a case of legal precedent. Are there cases that reverse or modify Cubby v. CompuServe?
For all their AI prowess they sure as heck seem to just suck at it when it comes to moderating for quality. These platforms are oceans, no, galaxies, of lies, misinformation and manipulation.
I am literally old enough to remember the arguments for Section 230 when it was voted into law. And they basically boiled down to "this internet thing is too new, let's protect these tiny new companies now that they are starting up by removing liability".
Totally made sense at the time. A quarter of a century later, these are now the largest companies in the history of humanity. We should at least be able to discuss what kind of liability we should be able to put on them.
Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are not the ones spreading the disinformation. Individuals are. What has changed is that individual people have the sort of voice that once only newspapers and institutions had.
By your logic, the phone companies would be legally liable for everything that users say or plan on phone calls.
I think my main gripe with these platforms is that an anonymous random person can accuse a specific person of anything without any corroborating evidence and destroy that person’s life with impunity —especially when responsibility gets diluted via retweets, mob mentality, etc.
It would be interesting to see the statistics of the number and percent successful of defamation and libel suits based on source of the info. I don't think those cases are very common since they can be hard to prove.
That's bound to bias the viewer in the opposite direction, which is no better. After all, a '60 minutes' investigation of opioid distributors led to Congress repealing a very bad law[1].
Why not just approach a subject with which you are unfamiliar with healthy skepticism (like everything else)? And perhaps seek out a domain expert you trust for confirmation when at all possible.
This is just another thing they managed to cause a moral panic about. They did not reveal a "very bad law", they made it harder for people to get safely manufactured opioid products. Pushing more people to unsafe/sub-par street products in the name of their safety. It's disgusting.
Someone needs to come up with a catchy name for a variant of the Gell Mann Amnesia effect where you know a source is willing to bend their presentation of facts for their agenda but ignore that knowledge when their aligns to your agenda. Because IMO that's a far bigger issue in 2021 than people innocently taking things at face value.
The audacity to believe that misinformation and otherwise "bad" content would cease to exist if online platforms become liable is insane.
For true liability, platforms would need to verify the ID of every user, essentially making the government completely control the content of the internet.
Absolutely ridiculous and honestly not even feasible.
I didn't watch the episode. But, I don't think the effect of repealing 230 is in dispute. It would make hosting content you didn't write unfeasible. The questions is whether that is a good thing or not. And what new rule would replace it if any.
Personally, I think even a complete repeal with no replacement would be a good thing. The vast majority of social networks, forums, comment sections, and other public spaces online are a cancer that are destroying our society.
And censorship is a poor alternative. Even if you find yourself on the favorable side of the censors now, inevitably they will come for you.
> The vast majority of social networks, forums, comment sections, and other public spaces online are a cancer that are destroying our society.
I don't think most of the participants in all those public spaces would agree with you. This forum we are having this conversation in right now is such a public space. Do you think it should just disappear?
I realize most wouldn't. But I would accept that trade. HN is a rare exception. And, there would still be sources for tech news: personal blogs, company sites, LWN and other news sites. It's true that news and discussion would flow less freely. But, I think that on-net 230 is doing profound damage to our society.
What trade, exactly, do you think you would be accepting?
If you think you would be trading the absence of HN and rare sites like it for the absence of Facebook and Twitter, or even them rolling back their most egregious moderation policies, think again. Facebook and Twitter won't care if Section 230 is repealed; they can afford enough lawyers to handle any lawsuits thrown at them. In fact they would probably like it, since it would mean even less competition for them than they currently have. So repealing Section 230 would actually make the situation worse, not better.
A change that might improve the situation would be to pass legislation clarifying the boundaries of "good faith moderation", which is the part of Section 230 that Facebook and Twitter are abusing. Unfortunately, nobody seems to be talking about that.
> HN is a rare exception.
Maybe, but the fact remains that it exists, and we can come here and have discussions and not have to even pay attention to all the dreck that is out there. I don't use Facebook. I don't use Twitter. I do use HN and sites like it. Those sites are not replaceable, and they need the protection that Section 230 offers.
> personal blogs, company sites, LWN and other news sites
I don't want "news". I want discussion. And the whole point of Section 230 is that we can have sites like this one where actual discussion can take place, not just someone posting their thoughts on blog A and someone else responding on blog B. The reason sites like this exist is that everyone just posting what they think on their own blog is not a good way to have online discussions. I don't want to give up the added value that discussion forums provide. Nor, as I said above, do I think giving it up by repealing Section 230 would actually improve anything.
> Absolutely ridiculous and honestly not even feasible.
What is not feasible about this? Anonymity, in particular, is not assured. Establishment media routinely publishes think pieces about why we might want to outlaw anonymity.
I don't know about the feasibility comment. Based on what the NSA already does, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to expand those sorts of programs. Not that I would support that.
Whether or not you like Musk is beside the point, but this clip of Elon's comments on twitter and his SEC suit makes it clear that the journalistic integrity of 60 Minutes is lackluster at best and that Leslie Stahl couldn't be more irrelevant in today's media.
If you're referring to Musk's deception of shareholders, he sent a tweet in Aug 2018 [0] saying that he was going to take Tesla private at $420 per share, which led to a fine from the SEC and some other civil lawsuits.
Interesting. I could see that. I actually didn't think of that. My impression with most laughter like that is that it can be a mechanism to disarm the interviewee and possibly get more info from them.
The episode may be terrible and indeed misleading for the wrong reasons.
But, and just as this written journalism can influence, that doesn't mean the adversarial stance is wrong.
Information feed and stimuli are becoming increasingly powerful. It's not clear where lines should be drawn, but there may be some moral dilemmas worth discussing.
I have literally never heard an account of someone who is an expert in a field or topic being impressed with the accuracy of a mainstream media report on that field or topic. What has the world come to when rolling stone a better source for news than 60 minutes or cnn?
The article keeps using the word propaganda. I do not think it means what they think it means. ‘Propaganda’ implies that 60 Minutes knew some of the information was false or misleading, yet used it anyway because it supports their agenda.
The author presents no information to support a claim that 60 Minutes has such an agenda. Much more likely is that 60 Minutes didn’t understand the story and got it wrong. Absent evidence, to do otherwise is to claim the ability to read minds.
Propaganda isn't about lying at all. Wiktionary etymology:
From New Latin propāganda, short for Congregātiō dē Propagandā Fide, "congregation for propagating the faith", a committee of cardinals established in 1622 by Gregory XV to supervise foreign missions, and properly the ablative feminine gerundive of Latin propāgō (“propagate”) (see English propagation). Modern political sense dates from World War I, not originally pejorative.
It basically means advertising or public relations, pejoratively.
This isn't just about libel and defamation of individuals. This is also about degradation of society as a whole. Today half the population gets their news from social media, and it is full of conspiracy theories. This is a major, major issue, and is leading to societal decay. Something needs to be done.
A modest proposal to remove some of the malicious misinformation on the internet without killing 230.
Have all users pay a small bond say $10 to an org of their own choosing in exchange for something not entirely dissimilar to an ssl cert that certifies that they are an actual person not identity #53434 created by a script and that they will not use it to sign provably false statements or those that are undertaken with reckless disregard for the truth.
Allow anyone to risk a fee designed to deter frivolous claims in order to challenge an existing bonded statement. This can be more than the $10 if needed but it is not lost if the claim is provably true. A small fee to be retained by the agency to cover its costs either way. For example it may require one to risk $30 to receive $8. Attacking things that are questionable but not outright lies would be non productive. Attacking broadly shared falsehoods that are trivially verifiable would be.
Social media platforms can require a bond in good standing to create an account. Bots would become expensive and ephemeral sources of income for scripts hunting for them. Nobody would bother to create bots for major platforms any longer as it would be non viable.
The individuals running the cert providers wouldn't turn into the ministry of truth because they would go out of business if everyone took their business elsewhere.
Ultimately permissive cert providers that dismiss all claims would be equally non viable because no providers have to accept their certs for account creation or posting.
Platforms can also allow you to sign statements which ought to be visually indicated by your browser for extra visibility or can require all posts to be signed (also visually indicated). Optionally they can provide a check to help users test their own shared media to see if what they are sharing is something so obviously wrong and stupid that a script can identify the bullcrap you are trying to post. See the flat earth, lizard people, or Rathensperger's brother works for China conspiracies.
The third time they have to pay an extra $10 or stop posting on Facebook they are liable they are likely to start doing actual fact checks themselves.
None of this stops dubious networks like parler or gab either having no certification requirements or having a certification authority that forwards fact checks to /dev/null but browsers can be configured with a list of legitimate certification authorities and be configured to show a visible indication that the page is untrusted for example a red outline around the entire page area.
This list should be provided by the browser/computer/OS vendor but be user editable so that if the user can decide to trust the gab certification authority they can do so. This ability will not destroy the utility of the system which is that most information exchanged on the internet will require a small amount of skin in the game making spreading deliberate lies difficult and expensive.
Networks whose only claim to fame is that they will allow any hideous misbehavior the users please to entertain will never be the majority of the internet.
The obvious question is what is the implications for anonymity on the internet. Your cert authority would not receive a notification for every action you take on the internet but they would be liable to both know who exactly who you are and any statement that was challenged. They would probably know broadly what sites you interacted with.
This information would under court order be subject to seizure by the government. Such a system isn't resilient against a repressive regime but neither is the system we have now as it is used by 99.9% of users today.
I can imagine it also serving to allow more John Doe lawsuits to be launched against individuals more easily as there is now a viable party to sue to reveal the identity of the poster but this is already a problem given that most users can in fact be unmasked by their ISPs now.
I like this very much. I could imagine an information marketplace around this with derivatives (specifically shorting stuff) being quite interesting. I imagine that's what betting markets aim to be.
Of course the freedom loving part of me doesn't want it to be a tax but a platform of its own.
Techdirt didn't actually cite any factual errors. They complain that 60 Minutes made a bunch of mistakes due to their poor journalistic integrity then make a load of unsubstantiated opinions. The fact that facebook and youtube will usually do the right thing out of their own good will isn't really a defense of 230. Nor is 60 Minutes making a pat statement that "230 is bad" as much as saying that disinformation is proliferating and there's very limited legal recourse under 230. There's no advocacy for a simple repeal. The presentation is factual.
Then again, Sixty Minutes has a long history of making stuff up, lying about it, or peddling other peoples lies without bothering to investigate (eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes#Controversies), so perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised...