Section 230

This Hawaiian Hotelier Hates Airbnb So Much He's Willing to Destroy the Internet To Kill It

The bad news is he's a congressman now. And he's trying to stomp all over Section 230 in order to attack home-sharing apps.

|

In order to wage war against home-sharing platforms, a former hotel executive and freshman congressman is trying to rewrite one of the fundamental laws which guarantees a free and open internet.

Rep. Ed Case (D–Hawaii) has introduced the "Protecting Local Authority and Neighborhoods Act" which would use federal power to stop websites like Airbnb and HomeAway from including listings that are illegal under local ordinances or state laws—in places like Hawaii, for example, which has some of the strictest laws against home-sharing in the country.

In a statement announcing the bill, Case said his proposal "would end abusive litigation by Internet-based short-term rental platforms like AirBnb, HomeAway, VRBO, Flipkey, and others attempting to avoid accountability for profiting from illegal rentals."

That supposedly "abusive litigation" those websites are engaging in? It's nothing more than pointing to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996—otherwise known as the 26 words that created the modern internet. Under the legal framework created by Section 230, online platforms are protected from legal liability for the content hosted on their servers, websites, or apps.

If Airbnb and other home-sharing platforms are pointing to Section 230 to avoid liability for supposedly "illegal" listings, that's hardly different from a person pointing to the First Amendment as a defense against being prosecuted for saying "hey, if you want to stay in my apartment for a few days, you can." The government has no business regulating how people use their private property in the first place, and it certainly has no business prosecuting anyone for merely advertising that a rental is available.

But that's what Case wants to do, and he's willing to tear up Section 230 in order to do it. His bill proposes specifically exempting any online platform offering rental property from Section 230's protections. To borrow the same analogy, it's the equivalent of saying Congress should rewrite the First Amendment so that it applies to everyone except my neighbor Bob, because I really don't like how Bob stands in the middle of the street and yells about how people can rent his spare bedroom.

That would be insane, of course. Furthermore, excluding one group of online platforms from Section 230 would start an avalanche of similarly grievance-based legislation aimed at other corners of the internet. There are already a bunch of proposals floating around Congress—all of them bad ideas—to rewrite or abolish Section 230 so the government can have greater control over online content. Each of them come with promises of protecting children from online predators or saving Americans from the scourge of autoplay videos, but all carry a thinly-veiled threat of making all online content subject to government censorship.

Case says his legislation is meant to help state and local governments that are "updating their land-use laws to more tightly regulate short-term rental activity including liability for the platforms," but it is pretty obvious that he's really just doing the hotel industry's bidding.

To say that Case has close ties to the hotel industry is an understatement. Before getting elected to Congress last year, he was on the American Hotel and Lodging Association's (AHLA) board of directors. Prior to that, he was a senior vice president for a Hawaiian hotel chain, Outrigger Enterprises Group. Two of Case's four largest donors, according to federal campaign finance data, are the AHLA and Marriott International.

"These Big Tech rental platforms are invoking a loophole in a federal law to snub their noses at local government leaders across the country, while continuing to profit from illegal business transactions," says Chip Rogers, president and CEO of the AHLA, in the congressman's statement announcing the bill. Elsewhere in the same statement, Rogers refers to Section 230 as an "antiquated law."

The AHLA has been on the front lines of the hotel industry's fight to stop Airbnb from competing with the Hiltons and Marriotts of the world. They were behind a series of misleading ads blaming Airbnb for harming neighborhoods in Washington, D.C. (even though the group had hired actors to play the roles of concerned residents). More seriously, the AHLA has helped write many of the local ordinances Case says he's trying to enforce with his bill. "You got to thank all of our friends at AHLA for working as hard as they have been to push legislation across the country really in all these key cities," Mike Barnello, chief executive of LaSalle Hotel Properties, said during a conference call with shareholders in 2016, before crediting those efforts with keeping prices high at hotel properties in New York City.

Indeed, the bottom line for hotel chains is the bottom line. Restricting home-sharing means artificially higher prices for hotel rooms—particularly when demand surges, studies show. Property rights and "antiquated laws" like the fundamental building block of a free and open internet? Those are lesser concerns.

"This bill creates a moral hazard by letting big hotel chains harass short term rental competitors, just so the big hotels can further increase their room rates," says Steve DelBianco, president of NetChoice, a trade association of e-commerce businesses. "Weakening Section 230 will damage Americans' ability to communicate online. The bill empowers Marriott to stop us from lawfully earning rental income on our own homes."

When you dig a little, most attempts to rewrite Section 230 are rooted in attempts by one industry to kneecap another. But it's rare to see such a blatant example of self-serving legislation.

NEXT: Corey Lewandowski, House Democrats Clash During Wild Trump Impeachment Prelude Hearing

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Airbnb is a virtue signaling pile of shit. They can rot.

    1. Loooool
      “One star. Guest kept following and berating the host, yelling at the other guests, calling them stupid, and accusing them all of being the same person. Then he smeared feces all over the walls and would not leave. Would not recommend.”

      1. So wait, you wouldn’t recommend it because a guest was unruly?

        Did that make sense to you in your desperate rush for a gotcha?

        No see, you either need me to be the host or the guest making the report. The way you did it, you sound retarded and it doesn’t make sense.

        1. He can’t afford the whole place (or doesn’t understand how AirBnb works?) so he looks poor and unsuccessful too.

          1. I just can’t understand why he got so butthurt about me calling out a virtue signaling prog company…

            1. I didn’t get the impression he’s butthurt about this post any more than the fact that you’re a giant pile of shit, all the time, without exception.

  2. Under the legal framework created by Section 230, online platforms are protected from legal liability for the content hosted on their servers, websites, or apps.

    Protected by whom? Protected from whom?

    And saying ‘protected from liability’ rather than ‘protected from potential liability’ would be hilarious if it didn’t mean you were just yet another shitty journalist.

    1. When you stay at a hotel there are all kinds of codes and ordinances that must be followed. Not when you stay at an airbnb. So, let’s say you and the family stay at an airbnb. You go out to get burgers and upon your return you see the home on fire and the flaming carcasses of your wife and children. One of them isn’t dead yet, but soon. All you can do is stand there holding the burgers and watch her burn. The fire was caused by things not up to code and maybe your wife could have made it out, but the railing wasn’t strong enough to support her and ADA specs were not met so it is discovered that while trying to escape the banister snapped. The people who offered the nice rental are entirely broke. They’re functioning opiate addicts and one of them has really bad diabetes. What amount of money do you think you would win in a lawsuit?
      If it was Hilton you’d get millions, but you wouldn’t have to sue. Things would be up to code.

      1. So, you’re saying I should support idiotic crony capitalism and protectionist regulations just in case my spouse and children are too stupid to figure out how to get out of a small building?

        I bet you thought your post wasn’t the bleating of a retard.

        1. I stayed at an airbnb that was a basement apartment. The door to upstairs was locked for obvious reasons and the door to outside was in a hallway that lead to steps. If the fire was in that hallway you’re not getting out. Hotels are designed in such a way that they aren’t fire traps like that. Should Great White have played while we were there we would have been burned alive.

          1. So you’re saying you’re so stupid that you expect a hotel when you go to a place that isn’t a hotel.

            I imagine Bed and Breakfasts baffle you.

            Do you go to the auto parts store and order coffee too?

          2. You realize some hotels have dozens of floors right? And those little signs next to the elevator telling you to use the stairs and not the elevator in case of fire are there for a reason.

          3. If you don’t want to stay in someone’s home instead of a purpose-built hotel, then don’t. Other people figure that if a room is good enough for the owners to use, it’s good enough for them to use when the owners aren’t using it for themselves. Or they inspect the layout of the place themselves, and don’t stay in a place that looks too difficult to get out of in the event of fire. The point is, people should have the choice. [That’s why things like Airbnb should be legal. Whether they should be able to profit from rentals that are (unfortunately) nevertheless illegal is another story. But it shouldn’t be the federal government stopping them.]

            1. But the only interference by the federal government is the protection it gives to the sites that advertise these illegal, according to local laws, accommodations.
              “The government” isn’t banning gig-economy short-term rentals, it is local ordinances, one intent of which is to keep commercial traffic from intruding into residential neighborhoods.
              And the First Amendment analogy is ridiculous. It was intended to keep political speech, free, but not to protect someone from “yelling FIRE in a crowded theater”.
              Eric Boehm-movement is, as usual, being an idiot.

              1. Yeah, but fuck local ordinances. All of them.

              2. It’s “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic,” and it’s dicta from an overruled case that allowed the government to send a man to prison for nonviolently criticizing the draft.

                From the Atlantic:
                “But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they’d realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court’s history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

                First, it’s important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. . .

                The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court’s holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice’s ancillary opinion that doesn’t directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a “clear and present danger” to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.

                Two similar Supreme Court cases decided later the same year–Debs v. U.S. and Frohwerk v. U.S.–also sent peaceful anti-war activists to jail under the Espionage Act for the mildest of government criticism. (Read Ken White’s excellent, in-depth dissection of these cases.) Together, the trio of rulings did more damage to First Amendment as any other case in the 20th century.

                In 1969, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried.”

        2. I think they were saying that your family could burn in either place, but you could make out like a bandit if it happened at a Hilton. Priorities.

          1. Exactly. His complaint is that Airbnb won’t let him monetize the death of his wife and children.

      2. “If it was Hilton you’d get millions, but you wouldn’t have to sue.

        AHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAH

        HOW ARE YOU THIS STUPID AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJ

        1. Wait, so if a Hilton burns due to proven fault on their part and people die Hilton walks away from it unscathed? Hilton awarded a former dishwasher 21 million for making them work on Sundays. Hilton will settle for millions if someone dies. The airbnb hosts won’t because they don’t have it. Hilton will go out of its way to make sure that this doesn’t happen to them. The airbnb hosts won’t.

          1. “Wait, so if a Hilton burns due to proven fault on their part and people die Hilton walks away from it unscathed?”

            Ah you’re extremely stupid and can’t read. No retard, what I said was extremely clear

            “If it was Hilton you’d get millions, but you wouldn’t have to sue.

            AHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAH

            HOW ARE YOU THIS STUPID AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJ

            You’re stupid. Both for claiming and actually thinking you wouldn’t have to sue.

            I mean, your idiot ass thinks they’d ever accept fault without a suit too. You’re stupid in ways too myriad to calculate.

      3. “When you stay at a hotel there are all kinds of codes and ordinances that must be followed. Not when you stay at an airbnb.”

        What you are describing are codes and ordinances applicable to the construction of the facility. Contrary to your claim, virtually anywhere you can rent an AirBNB in America, the home had to comply with all kinds of codes and ordinances when it was constructed.

        “So, let’s say you and the family stay at an airbnb. You go out to get burgers and upon your return you see the home on fire and the flaming carcasses of your wife and children. One of them isn’t dead yet, but soon. All you can do is stand there holding the burgers and watch her burn. The fire was caused by things not up to code and maybe your wife could have made it out, but the railing wasn’t strong enough to support her and ADA specs were not met so it is discovered that while trying to escape the banister snapped.”

        Cool story bro. ADA specs have virtually nothing to do with the strength of the banisters.

        And just think of all the ordinary Americans living in death traps just waiting to burst into flames with collapsing railings. Clearly we need code enforcement inspections of all private residences without any further delay. Lives are at stake!

        “The people who offered the nice rental are entirely broke. They’re functioning opiate addicts and one of them has really bad diabetes. What amount of money do you think you would win in a lawsuit?”

        The same amount you’d recover from a small corporation that was already underwater and declared bankruptcy? We can all make up stories to support our positions.

        “If it was Hilton you’d get millions, but you wouldn’t have to sue. Things would be up to code.”

        Tell that to the 114 people killed when the Hyatt Regency walkway collapsed.

        And not every hotel is a Hilton.

        1. “…virtually anywhere you can rent an AirBNB in America, the home had to comply with all kinds of codes and ordinances when it was constructed.”
          But those are not the same codes in place for locations that rent out short-term accommodations, like hotels and motels.
          And Section 230 is protecting sites that advertise these illegal units from having to take responsibility, if the residential codes aren’t sufficient for the demands of for-profit shelter-rentals.

          1. And Section 230 is protecting sites that advertise these illegal [according to worthless local ordinances] units

            So let me get this straight: the fedgov does something useful for once, and you want to end it?

            You’re the political equivalent of an infected appendix.

          2. “But those are not the same codes in place for locations that rent out short-term accommodations, like hotels and motels.”

            The building codes are. While there are some exceptions, especially for single-family residences (based on the fewer number of people), so are most of the other codes.

            If it’s okay for a landlord to rent an apartment to a long-term tenant, how can it suddenly become unsafe for that tenant to rent out his apartment short term?

      4. Literally nothing you wrote makes a lick of sense. Yes, there are codes and ordinances about safety for hotels. There are codes and ordinance about safety in home construction, too. Yes, there are insurance requirements for hotels. There are insurance requirements for homes, too. And despite all those codes, ordinances and insurance requirements, bad stuff sometimes happens.

  3. use federal power to stop websites like Airbnb and HomeAway from including listings that are illegal under local ordinances or state laws

    Oh, FFS! Plenty of companies have a “check with your local ordinances” disclaimer. Should all of them get clobbered?

    1. I mean, that’s the nature of Section 230, and that’s why the petty tyrants of those jurisdictions are trying to upend it.

  4. “online platforms are protected from legal liability for the content hosted on their servers, websites, or apps.”

    Sounds like a great idea, doesn’t it? Let’s take it to its logical conclusion.
    Let’s say I create an app that mirrors google maps. For 14.99 anyone can download it, find addresses, mark who lives there, put up information about them, including name, email, phone, pictures, and whatever dirt. The app then emails said person and let’s them know they’re on the app. They download and become furious and then mark whoever they think put them on there. For 50 bucks you get the app and the ability to remove your residence from it. Hate and paranoia fuels future downloads of the app. You set your server’s to zero data retention to so you can’t prove who uses your app. You become rich. When people complain you just pull the ole’ “Have you heard of 230 brah?”
    All of this is legal under 230.

    1. Should it be illegal? If so why?
      And should the same practice be illegal if it were conducted in a non-electronic way?
      For example, suppose I went to my local public park and posted a big paper map of the neighborhood with a big sign inviting passers-by to annotate the map however they like. Should it be illegal for me to do that?

      1. No. It shouldn’t be illegal to do it at all. However, if something happens to someone put on the map the app owner should be open to liability. Once that happens then the problem corrects itself because they’ll get sued to high heaven. The app wouldn’t even get made because it just means you’d get sued. See? Nothing has to be made illegal.

        1. You’re talking to Jeff, he’s so fucking stupid he spent an entire day insisting that he wasn’t wrong and everything he said should be forgotten because what he said now cancels it out.

          He’s a bitchy cunty little troll who lit what little cred he had left on fire by defending the stupidity of his moronic mistaken ad hominem.

          1. I see Tulpa is off his meds again and has re-established his obsessive behavior with me.

            1. Um, you’re talking about me after a dozen post tirade.

              Who is obsessed with whom? Since, you know, YOU POSTED AND I WAS TALKING TO THE PERSON WHO REPLIED TO YOU

              AHAHAHA YOU CAN’T EVEN GET PERESCUTED RIGHT YOU FUCKING TARD

              1. Lololol

                Shorter Jeff “I don’t post my glaring stupidity here to have it refuted!!! I posted here but replying is OBSESSIVE even though I do the exact same thing when I’m wrong because my life is so wrapped up in this site that I CANNOT EVER LET PEOPLE THINK I FUCKED UP EVEN IF I HAVE TO LIE TO HIDE IT!

                OP ED!!!”

                Yes actually, that is shorter Jeff, he’s a bloviating windbag.

              2. Get help Tulpa.
                You are simply reflecting everything that is true about you, onto me.

                You are the one who is obsessed with me so much so that you bring up a conversation from yesterday into a non-germane discussion. And THEN when I respond, you declare ME to be the obsessive one.

                You are the one who puts words into my mouth, and then accuse me of doing what you do.

                But you wouldn’t be Tulpa if you didn’t do those things, would you?

                1. Oh look you’re tantruming again because you’re obsessed with not looking wrong on a stupid fucking website.

                  Well, here’s another weeks worth of Jeff posts where he cries incessantly and then tries to pretend he isn’t upset because I proved him and idiot again.

                2. You are both obsessed with each other, and I wish you would both stop cluttering up the message boards with your mutual attacks. Notice I used “obsessed” as an adjective, and I think that’s accurate. I didn’t say either of you has an “obsessive disorder” or should be taking “meds”, etc. I think terminology like that has no place here. It really should have no place in conversation anywhere, but as libertarians especially, we should accept people as they are and not suggest that their brains should be changed chemically or “medically”, just with persuasion.

                  1. “and I wish”

                    Now shit in the other one.

                  2. “but as libertarians especially, we should accept people as they are”

                    Unless they’re posting on a message board you don’t want cluttered.

                    1. Yeah, but he didn’t tell you to seek medical help, he just told you to stfu. Which you should, because you’re every bit as dumb as Jeff and then some.

          2. “I’m don’t take advice from medical doctors”

            Jeff, stupidly attempting to mitigate the embarrassment he felt when he stupidly ad hommed the medical expertise of a doctor

            (watch as as stupidly tries to pretend anyone but him said dick about op Ed’s until he opened his idiot mouth and starting barking moronic excuses)

            1. “I’m don’t take advice from medical doctors”

              No one made this claim. This is you lying.

              1. “chemjeff radical individualist
                September.16.2019 at 4:34 pm
                Oh fuck off, all of you.

                No, I don’t read The Federalist for medical advice, and nor should you.

                I don’t care what the credentials are on the writer on some op-ed piece.

                “chemjeff radical individualist
                September.16.2019 at 5:03 pm
                I dismiss op-eds for medical advice, yes.

                ” chemjeff radical individualist
                September.16.2019 at 5:24 pm
                questioning the medcal expertise of an OBGYN.

                I didn’t question Dr. Davenport’s medical expertise. I’m sure she’s a fine doctor.

                I don’t trust her opinion

                Not only are you lying about not saying it, you said it REPEATEDLY.

                OP ED!!!

                  1. While that’s convincing evidence, Chemjeff has always been a troll and a liar. Piling on is unseemly especially since it is doubtful that anyone takes him seriously anyway.

                1. OK Jeff convince me. Because that makes it look like you said exactly what it is claimed you said. And reading the thread and context doesn’t make you look better, but worse.

                2. I didn’t question Dr. Davenport’s medical expertise. I’m sure she’s a fine doctor.

                  I don’t trust her opinion”

                  Oh, look at you. Not only did you dishonestly truncate my quote to change its meaning, you didn’t even quote the correct comment.

                  This is what I wrote, and what I continue to stand by.

                  I didn’t question Dr. Davenport’s medical expertise. I’m sure she’s a fine doctor.

                  I don’t trust her opinion on whether abortion is ever “medically necessary”, because one doctor’s opinion does not represent the state of all medical knowledge in any subject. I do not trust that she represented the entirety of the subject fairly, particularly considering the venue she chose to express her opinion.

                  I am not the one falling for the credentialist trick of using her fancy title to try to trump all disagreement on the subject, as a fallacy of appeal to authority.

                  And I don’t trust op-eds for medical advice. Nor should you.

                  1. “Oh, look at you. Not only did you dishonestly truncate my quote”

                    I posted the link you were afraid to, for everyone to read for themselves.

                    The quote stands, you just hate that it proves you wrong.

                  2. ” I don’t trust her opinion on whether abortion is ever “medically necessary”, because one doctor’s opinion does not represent the state of all medical knowledge in any subject

                    You stupid fuck, you’re literally saying you don’t trust ANY DOCTORS because no doctor represents the state of all medical knowledge.

                    The full quote makes you look MORE stupid, not better.

                    1. Ahahahah thanks for giving me an even bigger club to crush you with you fucking dick stepping moron ahahahahahah

                      HE THOUGHT IT MADE HIM LOOK BETTER AND HE STANDS BEHIND NOT TRUSTING ANY DOCTORS BECAUSE THEY DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING AHAHAHAH THIS MAKES SENSE TO HIM AHAHAHAJAJA

                      HE SAID IT AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAH

                  3. You really are a glutton for punishment Little Jeffy.

        2. However, if something happens to someone put on the map the app owner should be open to liability.

          Why? The map owner didn’t post the problematic material on the map, someone else did.

          What you’re saying, in the context of my non-electronic example, is that if some random passer-by writes something on my big paper map, and something happens to the person living at that spot on the map, that *I* should be in trouble for what the random passer-by wrote. Really?

          The app wouldn’t even get made because it just means you’d get sued.

          The hypothetical app you’re describing bears a strong resemblance to an app that already exists, Nextdoor.

          1. Why would anyone even talk to you after you spent an entire evening lying and making a fool of yourself screaming “OP ED!!!” after you ad hommed a doctor by stupidly questioning her ability to give medical advice.

            1. questioning her ability to give medical advice.

              That is an untruthful summary of the discussion and you know it.

              Would you mind explaining to icannotread here why you insisted on barging into this discussion and ruining it with your threadshitting trolling?

              Now, I have work to do. Thanks for destroying another discussion, Tulpa.

              1. I love how you stupidly let me prove you’re a liar by posting your own words retard.

                “Now, I have work to do”

                Well, that erection you’re gonna, swallow can’t wait I guess liar.

              2. “chemjeff radical individualist
                September.16.2019 at 5:03 pm
                I dismiss op-eds for medical advice, yes.

                1. Yes, that’s right folks, Jeff thought that after making a fool of himself ad him king a doctor whose credentials he was too stupid to look up, then thight the way out of that embarrassing faux pas was to DISMISS MEDICAL ADVICE BECAUSE IT IS IN AN OPINON PIECE.

                  HE ACTUALLY THOUGHT DOCTORS STOP HAVING EXPERT OPINIONS

                  Well he didn’t really. He just needed a way out of the trap he set for himself, and decided to look stupid instead of incredibly stupid.

                  1. HE ACTUALLY THOUGHT DOCTORS STOP HAVING EXPERT OPINIONS

                    Was the op-ed about obstetrics and gynecology, the medical specialization of Dr. Davenport? No, no it wasn’t. She was offering her opinion on abortion, and hiding behind her credentials to inflate her opinion to have more worth than it deserves.

                    I don’t trust Dr. Davenport’s opinion on abortion. I don’t trust her opinion on yoga or car repair or snake charming either.

                    Get it now?

                    1. I post your words and links, you post long bloviating explanations about why what you obviously said isn’t what you obviously said.

                      Fuck, you’re so wrong you flatly refuse to even link to your own posts. Everyone can see it.

                    2. “Was the op-ed”

                      Was your original, before you fucked up criticism “oped?”

                      Nope. That’s your lame ass, thought about it all day because being wrong are at you fallback, and it’s retarded. No one said dick about op Ed until you needed it as an excuse.

          2. Yes, but my app was created for the sole purpose of profiting off of the complete defamation of someone’s character with a business model that hopes you then do the same. I’m not the one doing it. The users are. Oh, what’s that? Someone posted your social security number? Don’t know what to tell you. Contact a lawyer and have them contact our legal department. You may hear back. The more you pay for a lawyer the better chance you’ll have. Someone posted pictures of your 12 year old daughter in the backyard in her bathing suit? 30 photos? Provocative ones? Seems subjective, but whatever you say. Well, I’m sorry about that. You shouldn’t have her outside. Don’t know what to tell you. Oh, you can’t get a job because you’re a serial rapist? Oh, you’re not? Then why did 3 users here say you are? Gonna have to find the person that posted that. We don’t have that info.
            230 brah. Don’t look at us.

        3. Considering that most or all of that information is already publicly available who would you hold accountable if something happens without such an app?

          1. I’m talking about taking it a step up and letting users post what isn’t publicly available. Or things that aren’t even true that you then have to contend with. Any ex can write whatever they want about you. Your neighbor can say that you’re a white supremacist because you didn’t mow your lawn. Not only that, but you beat your wife and kids. Rape may be involved too. It will have an easy screenshot feature as well so the info can be easily shared with those that don’t have the app. Those that see this info will then be more inclined to purchase the app to see what is on there about them and maybe get revenge on those that may have posted it.

      2. I’d also like to add that tech adapts. So, if 230 stays put one’s only way to sue is if they’re lucky enough to track down the person that posted it. Good luck. This is going to then result in an internet ID of sorts because if you constantly get legal requests for the info of users (which you don’t have to give) you just set it to discard all data.
        If you piss me off I can ruin your life by calling you a pedo, with no proof, and there is nothing you can do about it. I can use the platforms, that are free from liability (which means they won’t even attempt to stop it) just because you were a poor DM in our role playing game. I can also manipulate the search engines so the information of you banging children is the first thing that comes up under your name. Be a good DM Jeffy.

        1. You’re wasting your time, Jeff was utterly and irrefutably wrong the other day and spent hours making a fool of himself to avoid admitting it.

          Nothing constructive will come out of talking to that troll.

          1. Jeff was utterly and irrefutably wrong the other day

            Translation: Tulpa twists the meaning of my words, and then mocks me for something I didn’t say.

            Which is what trolls like Tulpa do.

            Now run along and take your meds.

            1. Post the link and let the audience decide bitch.

              That shut you up then and it’ll shut you up now.

                1. I’m not your dancing monkey. If you want to post a link, nothing’s stopping you.

                  1. No, I like to ask you to do it so everyone can see how reluctant you are and how guilty that makes you look.

                    Nice job with that.

                    1. And so much for no excuse huh?

                      “I’m not lying and wasn’t wrong but won’t link to the thread”

                      Lolololol no that doesn’t make you look guilty as fuck ahahahahajaja

                    2. It makes him look extremely guilty as fuck.

                    3. Whatever, Tulpa.
                      Funny how someone magically appears in these past two discussions who just credulously agrees with everything that Tulpa writes.

                    4. “chemjeff radical individualist
                      September.18.2019 at 2:18 pm
                      Whatever, Tulpa”

                      Ahahaha he can’t even deny it ahahahaj

                      “Funny how”

                      You slunk back in here after you thought everyone left and are pathetically trying to change the subject?

                      God damn dude, your obsession with me is fucking sad.

    2. “Let’s say I create an app that mirrors google maps. For 14.99 anyone can download it, find addresses, mark who lives there, put up information about them, including name, email, phone, pictures, and whatever dirt.”

      Who would pay $14.99 for that?

      “The app then emails said person and let’s them know they’re on the app.”

      Section 230 doesn’t remove any liability for your actions unrelated to moderating the content in good faith.

      “They download and become furious and then mark whoever they think put them on there.”

      More likely they delete it as spam and block your address.

      “For 50 bucks you get the app and the ability to remove your residence from it.”

      Again, Section 230 doesn’t remove any liability for your actions unrelated to moderating the content in good faith.

      “Hate and paranoia fuels future downloads of the app. You set your server’s to zero data retention to so you can’t prove who uses your app. You become rich.”

      Or only a couple of morons download the app in the first place, most people ignore the emails, the few that don’t report the app for attempted extortion, and you wind up penniless.

    3. So what?
      A. None of that would be illegal if conducted on paper instead of through an app.
      B. What you just described happens every day to businesses on Yelp or any of a thousand other review sites. It’s legal there, too. And it was legal long before Sec 230 was passed.
      C. Like with Yelp, the site will either develop internal controls to weed out bad information or people will quickly learn to ignore it.
      D. Because of C, you’re never going to get rich.

  5. What a terrible analogy.

    “That’s hardly different from a person pointing to the First Amendment as a defense against being prosecuted for saying “hey, if you want to stay in my apartment for a few days, you can.”

    Would you offer the same defense for someone pretending to be a doctor based on it could be a buddy saying, I’ll take a look at your injury?

    Make good arguments, not awful ones.

    1. My argument is that 230 is a piece of shit and it allows me to me an even bigger piece of shit. It also protects me when I knowingly exploit others. If you think people won’t do that, well, you haven’t me.

      1. “It also protects me when I knowingly exploit others. If you think people won’t do that”

        You mean like Hilton denying fault and requiring everyone with a claim against them to sue them?

      2. My argument is that 230 is a piece of shit and it allows me to me an even bigger piece of shit.

        YOUR LIBERTY permits you to be a piece of shit if you want to be.

        Just look at Tulpa here, the poster child of how not to use one’s liberty.

        Section 230 permits individuals to exercise their liberty to have greater reach via the Internet, that’s all. But Section 230 itself doesn’t turn upright people into shit people. They were already shit people in the first place.

        1. I guess you got down with those hand jobs and decided no one would be watching this thread so you could slink in like a bitch and not get noticed.

        2. “Just look at Tulpa here”

          Yeah, we all remember when you called for people you don’t like on a platform you don’t own to be censored, because liberty.

          But no, you’re not obsessed with me.

  6. Well, only a website run by degenerate scumbags lacking in basic decency would inflict autoplay videos on their users.

    1. My browser has a setting to stop that on most sites. It doesn’t happen here for me. I don’t agree with most new laws, but boy. We need one for that.

  7. Want to rent a room out now and then? Fine. Want to rent out your house for a week or two when you go on vacation? Fine. Want to buy houses you aren’t going to live in to run as hotels in zoned residential neighborhoods? Screw you.

    This is how you kneecap airbnb: get your neighbors together and cause a stink at city hall about the unlicensed hotel some jerk opened up in your residential neighborhood. Remind them nobody’s stopping anyone from doing that next door to them.

    Worked for us.

    1. don’t you feel better now, too?

    2. Someone rented the apartment next to my girlfriend’s and we thought they always had friends over, but it was being rented out on airbnb. Those were all different renters. Never occurred to me that people would do that. They were making at least 3 times what the rent cost. I stayed at an airbnb once and I did really enjoy the experience. Don’t get me wrong. I did notice quite a lot of things like stairs, walkways, and all kind of things not up to code that could cause serious problems. It’s not that it was a junky place. Not at all. A disabled person could easily become injured though. Wooden steps are fine in a home. They get slippery when wet. Who do you sue? The shower was extremely hot when I first turned it on. It was unexpected. An elderly person could have gotten hurt. The unit also had a sauna in it which was amazing. I doubt it was inspected seeing as the homeowner installed it himself. Nice, but if the thermometer fails someone can die.
      There are ways around this such as making the insurance needed to operate an airbnb rental so insanely high that anyone who sues is guaranteed an awesome payout if their injuries are severe enough. This will then prevent most from opening a rental because the costs for a unit will be equal to a hotel. Then that means those that like the airbnb experience will choose it instead of just being forced to stay at a hotel.
      I don’t have the answers. I do see the problems. There are probably other ways to solve this aside from banning these types of rentals.

      1. “I did notice quite a lot of things like stairs, walkways, and all kind of things not up to code that could cause serious problems.”

        And yet somehow it’s perfectly acceptable for people to live there as long as they aren’t short-term renters.

    3. scloan58,
      How did it “work” for you?
      AirBnB can still list that place as a rental and Section 230 protects the site from you being able to sue them for actions that violate what your “city hall” has said the building owner can do.
      AirBnB is abetting illegality. Civil suits can be used to prevent that, but FEDGOV put their thumb on the scale, so that it is impossible.

      1. You know it’s pretty easy to find out who actually owns a house, right? You don’t need to sue AirBnB when the owner is readily available.

  8. hope he stops @PLAN-A

    1. If it doesn’t work, he’ll keep going until he runs out of letters.

      Too bad for him Plan B is already taken.

      1. may serve as significant roadblock in his reign of tyranny

  9. No surprise really. It’s not so much that he is in bed with the hotel industry – but that he comes from a state that is fucking clueless (more so even than CA) re its tax structure. And rather than get his own state to fix their problem, he wants the rest of the world to fix the problem.

    HI has possibly the lowest property taxes in the world. The result is that it costs near nothing in carrying costs for ‘foreign owners’ to buy vacation prop there and just leave it empty for most of the year. Which means it has the least affordable (both rent-to-income and mortgage-to-income) housing in the US and building housing supply will only supply yet more vacation homes to foreign owner/speculators with cash who can easily afford to leave it empty ($1400 in prop tax on a $500k condo). And like every place that gives that sort of tax subsidy to landowners, it ‘offsets’ that with higher income and sales taxes on individuals and some sort of a ‘room’ tax or ‘transient’ tax on businesses – which does get paid by hotels but almost certainly doesn’t get paid by AirBnB folks.

  10. Support for the OP seems not to be coming mostly from people who have thought carefully about Section 230. It seems mostly to be coming from people who are happy to see Section 230 undermine local ordinances they do not like. Their comments suggest motives unrelated to experience, and totally ideological.

    icannotread’s larger point is well made. Section 230 operates to be sure every defamation, every extortion scheme, every copyright violation, every election manipulation scheme, every Nigerian fraud, every schoolyard attack on a disabled child, all that and much more, all swill, will always be published and do damage before any after-the-fact corrective can try to catch up. Mostly no correctives will work, because the damage already done will not be fixable.

    The only solution is to force online publishers to read everything prior to publishing, and the only way to do that is to re-apply to online publishers the conventional law of libel—which still applies to ink-on-paper publishers to this day. Congress blundered when it passed Section 230. The damage will continue to grow and diversify as long as Section 230 is left in place.

    1. “icannotread’s larger point is well made.”

      Ahahahahahaahahha STOP SHILLING YOUR DUMB FUCKING SOCKPUPPET CODESUCKER.

      HE THOUGHT WE WOULDN’T KNOW IT WAS HIM AHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAJAJA

      1. Ahahahahahahh I can’t believe HE THOUGHT WE WOULDN’T SEE IT IS OBVIOUSLY HIM AHAHAHAJAJJAJAJAJAJAJJ

    2. Or a simpler solution: readers can try to be more discerning about which sources they trust.

    3. Stephen

      1. What about my private Facebook posts, which can only be seen by 1,184 of my closest friends? Do my private Facebook posts need to be vetted for legality, accuracy, defamatory content, and so on by Facebook employees prior to publishing? Or does this just my public ones? What about a group message in Facebook messenger?

      2. In the case of Airbnb, we are looking at land use and commercial activity. The concept of a “publisher” is really totally irrelevant, because it is not speech that is being regulated or having liability attached to it, but commercial activity.

  11. So let me guess: powerful hotel lobby tries to use influence on legislators to squelch competition. Sounds a lot like the taxi lobby in Las Vegas trying to keep Uber out.

  12. The main argument against airbnb seems to be:

    “People who rent out their house will turn it into a hostel for scary strange people I don’t want in my neighborhood and then it wont be up to code so the scary strange people will get injured or even burn to death”

    It seems like a self-correcting problem to me.

    1. Yes and no, you still have a busybody infestation.

      1. I have a feeling that icannotread frequently falls down stairs, so he won’t be around much longer anyway.

        1. One can only hope.

  13. Well, this guy wouldn’t be so angry if someone would change his diapers.

  14. None of this makes much sense.

    Section 230 prevents interactive computer services from being treated as the “publisher or speaker” of content transmitted using their services. That has to do with speech, defamation, and first amendment issues.

    It has nothing to do with regulated commercial activity, land use, or transactions.

    If I’m looking at contracts and the commercial activity of rental transactions, a “speaker” is not even a relevant concept.

    1. But, apparently, it is being used to prevent people from suing AirBnB for advertising illegal activity, with respect to short-term rentals and local ordinances that forbid, or limit it.

  15. I think he should have laws governing online publishing like publishing in the press

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.