Biden's Commerce Nominee Backs Changes To Section 230 (theverge.com) 178
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: In a hearing on her nomination for Commerce Department secretary on Tuesday, Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo told lawmakers that she will pursue changes to Section 230 if confirmed. Responding to questions posed by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Raimondo said that she would use the tools available through the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to convene stakeholders, industry leaders, lawmakers and others to identify the means of reform to the pivotal internet law.
"I think platform accountability is important because I've seen in my own state that misinformation hurts people," Raimondo said. "But of course, that reform would have to be balanced against the fact that these businesses rely upon user-generated content for their innovation, and they've created many thousands of jobs." [...] It's unclear how the Biden administration plans to address Section 230 concerns, but Raimondo's comments offer some insight into what could come in the future. In an interview with The New York Times last year, Biden said that the law should be "revoked." Once Trump signed his social media order, a Biden campaign spokesperson told The Verge that he still wanted to repeal the law but disagreed with the former president's executive order.
When it comes to addressing monopoly power in the tech industry, Raimondo said she would leave those decisions up to Congress and the Federal Trade Commission. Still, Raimondo told Johnson, "I believe in competition and innovation and as it relates to social media companies, I think they need to be held accountable for what they put on their platform. "We have to hold these companies accountable," Raimondo said.
"I think platform accountability is important because I've seen in my own state that misinformation hurts people," Raimondo said. "But of course, that reform would have to be balanced against the fact that these businesses rely upon user-generated content for their innovation, and they've created many thousands of jobs." [...] It's unclear how the Biden administration plans to address Section 230 concerns, but Raimondo's comments offer some insight into what could come in the future. In an interview with The New York Times last year, Biden said that the law should be "revoked." Once Trump signed his social media order, a Biden campaign spokesperson told The Verge that he still wanted to repeal the law but disagreed with the former president's executive order.
When it comes to addressing monopoly power in the tech industry, Raimondo said she would leave those decisions up to Congress and the Federal Trade Commission. Still, Raimondo told Johnson, "I believe in competition and innovation and as it relates to social media companies, I think they need to be held accountable for what they put on their platform. "We have to hold these companies accountable," Raimondo said.
OK question (Score:4, Insightful)
Good like a drunk bear does to a tent (Score:3, Informative)
Since 230 is statutory law, any changes most likely have to be done by the US Congress.* The US Congress is of course about as dull as a drunken bear, so ...
Bob: What happened to your tent?
Sue: A drunken bear did something to it.
Bob: Did something good to it or something bad?
Having said that ...
* The statute actually says that sites can engage in filtering that is done "good faith to ... obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable".
Note it lists what they ca
Re:Good like a drunk bear does to a tent (Score:5, Interesting)
Note it lists what they can block. It doesn't say they can block "anything they want, for any reason or for no reason". Note it also says in good faith.
Actually, it says that if they block something for some other reason not on the list that they only lose their shield against liability... as to the particular user who had their post removed. The problem is that the particular user will inevitably have no right to force the site to put the post back, or to collect damages, or any other thing. Section 230 doesn't create a cause of action and doesn't prohibit removing content -- it just grants a shield to the site in certain (commonplace) circumstances.
Suppose that Slashdot admins removed your post above and it was absolutely not in good faith, and they conceded as much. What are you going to do about it? If you'd sue them, what law that gives you a remedy would you use to go after them?
The executive agencies could, as regulatory policy, take a close look at "in good faith".
Not really; no one has regulatory authority with regard to section 230.
The situation is similar to the 17 USC 512 (DMCA) safe harbor for user-posted material that infringes copyright. A website will typically comply with the DMCA by registering a designated agent, and will typically take down allegedly infringing materials if requested. BUT nothing obligates them to; a site could deliberately decide to chance it that there is no underlying infringement and refuse to honor the request. All that happens is that they might be dragged into the suit and have to defend themselves, but they could win.
Section 230 is even better in that the site probably won't be dragged into anything.
Re:Good like a drunk bear does to a tent (Score:5, Interesting)
While you bring up a good point, I think you take it too far.
Sites (and ISPs and others) wouldn't need the S 230 protection from liability if there were never any liability.
Under law existing prior to passage, they absolutely could be liable. But then you get to damages ...
If I post saying that Trump is a dork face and Slashdot removes the post, what's the damages? About zero.
On the other hand, suppose someone owns a bunch of businesses that have the person's name writ large across them. Businesses named after the owner. Then some people post accusations against this business person on Twitter and Facebook. Twitter and Facebook then prevent the business owner from posting a response to the allegations. The damages could easily be tens of millions of dollars.
Think that's an unlikely scenario, I'm stretching it to come up with such a situation? Suppose the businesses named after the person have names like Trump Tower, Trump National Doral and Trump Turnberry. Right or wrong, that has already happened.
Not that I disagree with blocking him (Score:2)
Btw, I'm not necessarily saying that Trump shouldn't have been blocked. Just saying that the decision to ban someone or not CAN have significant effects, and therefore significantly liability without the shield of S 230.
Whether or not that dude who uses to be president SHOULD have been banned is an entirely different discussion. I discussion I don't actually care about.
Re:Good like a drunk bear does to a tent (Score:4, Informative)
On the other hand, suppose someone owns a bunch of businesses that have the person's name writ large across them. Businesses named after the owner. Then some people post accusations against this business person on Twitter and Facebook. Twitter and Facebook then prevent the business owner from posting a response to the allegations. The damages could easily be tens of millions of dollars.
You're moving the goalposts, though.
You said that under 47 USC 230 removing material outside of the laundry list of permitted reasons could expose a site to liability for the removal. It generally can't; typically, no one has a right to have their material on a particular site against the wishes of the owner of the site.
So for example, if Facebook and Twitter refused to let Trump post in your hypo quoted above, Trump can't sue them for that. Note in particular the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 US 241 (1974) in which it was held to violate the First Amendment to require a newspaper to give political candidates the opportunity to respond to attacks in the same paper.
Whether Facebook and Twitter are liable for typical user-posted material that they do not remove is a different issue entirely. Under section 230, they are not liable. There is no requirement of good faith, there is no laundry list.
So the stuff that's already happened? A-OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for citing a case.
If I'm understanding you correctly, your main point here was that there could be liability for NOT removing something, for leaving it up or "publishing" it, but not so much for removing something?
I would agree it's *more likely* to have liability attached to that which you choose to publish, or that which you publish because you missed it. On the other hand, right now Google is in some trouble for not publishing their competitors at the top of the search results. There are instanc
Re: (Score:2)
There were court cases before Section 230 that inspired Section 230 because they did not go the way you implied with your "general rule".
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly there have been cases that went both ways.
In fact, AOL was the defendant in two cases which went opposite ways.
Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy however, was the typical case, how it normally went. The court ruled that because Prodigy moderated posts, they were publishers, not distributors. Prodigy was therefore liable for libel in the posts they failed to remove.
Re: (Score:2)
Ps I posted more detail about that case, quoting the ruling, elsewhere in this thread if you're curious.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a lawyer, so much of this is just my likely uneducated understanding about the law.
I think telecommunications has its own set of legal restrictions already on what they can and cannot do - they are pretty heavily regulated and probably not allowed to do any moderation even if it were technically feasible (I personally support this - the underlying communications layer needs to stay neutral).
I would assume that the phone company is not liable because phone calls by their nature are (typically) priva
An interesting idea. Came from rail lines (Score:2)
That's an interesting idea of what a new law could be.
The phone companies and ISPs actually ended up where they are by courts applying the law that applied to transportation companies like UPS and FedEx, and companies that transport people such as bus lines. Phone companies and ISPs transport words, videos, and pictures. The railroad transports any passenger, without discriminating. Because they transport *anyone*, they aren't liable for transporting an escaping convict.
Of course 230 changed the situation
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what ideas you find interesting in my post. I don't think I really suggested anything new (except perhaps the creation of a DMCA-like takedown request for slanderous material), just a bunch of ramblings about the problems :). And of course such takedown notices would be abused just as much if not more than the DMCA notices - so it probably isn't really a good idea.
Thanks for your link to your other post. I knew most of it but you added a few details I didn't. It is interesting that Prodigy got
Re:Good like a drunk bear does to a tent (Score:4)
If I'm understanding you correctly, your main point here was that there could be liability for NOT removing something, for leaving it up or "publishing" it, but not so much for removing something?
Yes. Section 230 protects the site in both instances (though moreso in the case of failing to remove something). But even setting section 230 aside, it is very difficult to go after a site merely because the site removed something it shouldn't have -- the plaintiff suing the site would have to show that they had a right somehow to compel the site to have certain content stay up. It could be contractual, but most contracts will permit the site to remove things at will, removing that option. It's hard to see many other viable ways to sue over content that is removed, as opposed to over content that is not.
On the other hand, right now Google is in some trouble for not publishing their competitors at the top of the search results.
Google is being accused of anti competitive behavior, but that's a rather special case; most sites are not Google. And even then, for most things Google might refuse to carry, it isn't for anti competitive reasons. Google and Yelp compete with regard to reviews of local businesses, and Google should not leverage its monopoly on general web search to favor themselves with local-business-reviews, a separate line of work. But if Google decides not to return results for a white supremacist website, it's not because Google is trying to bolster their own.
neutral like a common carrier
I'd advise you to not throw around the term 'common carrier' because it has a very specific meaning that basically never could apply to a website. (Generally, a common carrier is a regulated transportation or transportation-adjacent business that has to accept cargo or passengers if there's room, and has regulated schedules, rates, routes, etc., and this was later extended into regulated utilities) The term you're looking for is 'distributor' as in a bookstore or newsstand being a distributor for books or newspapers that someone else published.
So removing X would make you an editor, and therefore liable for not removing Y.
Yes; and that's the greater concern in terms of liability; there would always be a risk that something left online would somehow give rise to liability, even though it had not been understood to initially. (As in how Prodigy moderated for foul language but didn't vet the claims as to financial fraud that people were making, and which might not have been apparent to a generic moderator depending on the sophistication needed to understand the claims -- think of how much dumbing down was needed in The Big Short to inform the audience as to what was going on).
Section 230 protects against this absolutely -- no one is treated as the publisher of someone else's content, so as to avoid publisher liability.
We don't see anyone saying T-Mobile or AT&T should be liable, because T-Mobile and AT&T never got into the moderation game.
Well... actually some of the impetus for this is because 1) the traditional news industry hates the Internet, and wants to get rid of their competitors; 2) copyright-oriented industries (the usual suspects in RIAA and MPA, formerly MPAA) hate the Internet and want to get rid of it and turn it into something like cable tv ; 3) the hotel industry, oddly enough -- they hate Airbnb and view this as a way to attack it. There is more going on besides people being upset with too much, or not enough, or wrong (or right, but they're upset about it) moderation.
It's because the social networking sites started doing moderation and other editorial decisions that they now face a responsibility to do it well.
That's Prodigy -- if you're going to make editorial decisions, you have to do so perfectly, and thus should not allow any unvet
Re: (Score:2)
> So bringing it back to where we started, messing with section 230 is itself anti competitive.
I think we agree there. Though the current *wording* makes this discussion necessary:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Ideally the wording could be clarified. I don't trust Congress to clarify those two words and not totally screw the whole thing up. The meaning is somewhat clear to those who are familiar with the list rule, but probably most *attorneys* haven't come across a case relying on that rule, so they
Re: (Score:3)
As you point out, the
Re: (Score:2)
Think that's an unlikely scenario, I'm stretching it to come up with such a situation? Suppose the businesses named after the person have names like Trump Tower, Trump National Doral and Trump Turnberry. Right or wrong, that has already happened.
Trump was removed for reasons which are explicitly listed under Section 230. He knew what he was doing, or he was unqualified to use the internet; either way, he got what he was asking for. And the ban is against him, not his organization (yet) so he's free to have other representatives defend against claims of wrongdoing by his organizations.
Of course, if those representatives operate in bad faith, they too can be removed from the platform. But that's the system working as designed, because they still don'
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it says that if they block something for some other reason not on the list that they only lose their shield against liability... as to the particular user who had their post removed....
Can you point me to that clause, since I find nothing that supports that claim? Section 230 lists only protections given to service providers.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
the law does NOT say "sites can block anything they want, for any reason or no reason".
There is no US law, including Sec 230, that prohibits internet sites from blocking anything they want for whatever reason they want. Since it is silent on the matter, US law absolutely DOES say "sites can block anything they want, for any reason or no reason". Sites all over the internet block/remove content they don't like for whatever reason all day every day, including the site you are posting on right now.
Sec 230 didn't change one thing when it comes to a websit
Re:Good like a drunk bear does to a tent (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the law before 230 was that publishers / carriers had a choice:
Do not moderate anything, like the phone company. You're just a carrier and not liable for the content.
Moderate / make editorial decisions like a newspaper. You're the publisher and are responsible for what you publish, in the Letters to the Editor section or otherwise.
Prior to 230, filtering some things made you responsible for what you filtered and what you didn't.
The phone company doesn't filter any conversations.
They don't care if you're having phone sex.
THEREFORE they aren't liable for carrying the conversation about hijacking a plane, or whatever murder plot.
The newspaper DID reject / moderate / make editorial decisions about what ads they would publish, so they WERE liable if the published "wanted: Hitman to kill my wife".
Section 230 says web sites get the best of both worlds - they can filter filthy, lavicuous, pornographic stuff without becoming liable for what ends up on the site and what doesn't.
There is a legal principle that is helpful to understand regarding that list. Suppose the statute says:
Automotive repair shops must recycle used oil, antifreeze, brake fluid, and other fluids.
The principle says that "other fluids" does NOT mean they need to recycle their leftover soda from lunch. Here's the rule:
When a statute includes a list of this form:
Specific example, specific example, specific example, and general category
It is to be read as:
Specific example, specific example, specific example, and SIMILAR general category
So this statute:
Automotive repair shops must recycle used oil, antifreeze, brake fluid, and other fluids.
Would be read as:
Automotive repair shops must recycle used oil, antifreeze, brake fluid, and other SIMILAR fluids.
Let's do another one. Suppose the legislature writes:
Guns, knives, nunchuka, throwing stars, swords, and other dangerous items are not allowed at the fair.
Will you be convicted for bringing a letter telling your boss that he's an idiot? How about the hotel key card from the room you secretly shared with with wife's sister? Those are dangerous items.
However, the rule is that because it follows the form of specific examples, ending with a general category, it's supposed to mean:
Guns, knives, nunchuka, throwing stars, swords, and other SIMILAR dangerous items are not allowed at the fair.
This is actually a particular case of a more general legal principle that all the parts of the law mean SOMETHING. When the court is trying to figure out what the legislature meant by this list:
Automotive repair shops must recycle used oil, antifreeze, brake fluid, and other fluids.
The part about "used oil, antifreeze, brake fluid" has to mean SOMETHING. They wrote that for a reason.
Therefore it can't mean just:
Automotive repair shops must recycle fluids.
So remembering the rule:
Specific example, specific example, specific example, and general category
It is to be read as:
Specific example, specific example, specific example, and SIMILAR general category
We now apply the rule to 230. .. obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable
Means:
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise similarly objectionable
If Congress had meant "they can remove anything they want", they would have written that. Congress made a list of the kinds of things sites can remove. The legal principle is that since Congress made that list, they must have done so for a reason. It must mean something.
More specifically, because it's a list of specific examples closed with the general category, the principle says it means "these specific examples and others like them".
Re: (Score:2)
Do not moderate anything, like the phone company. You're just a carrier and not liable for the content.
Moderate / make editorial decisions like a newspaper. You're the publisher and are responsible for what you publish, in the Letters to the Editor section or otherwise.
Prior to 230, filtering some things made you responsible for what you filtered and what you didn't.
I know that's what people were worried about, however it's not 100% clear if that was the case though. From what I gather it was assumed that i
Re: (Score:2)
Do not moderate anything, like the phone company. You're just a carrier and not liable for the content.
Moderate / make editorial decisions like a newspaper. You're the publisher and are responsible for what you publish, in the Letters to the Editor section or otherwise.
I really wish people would stop saying that. Websites are not carriers and were never carriers since they publish (copy) content every time you visit. The phone company on the other hand, just passes data requested by side A and delivers it to side B. No copies are made.
At any rate, you and everyone else here seems to have the intent of the changes backwards. They don't care about what is being removed, they want more liability for content that is left up. They want tronger copyright enforcement and sit
Re: (Score:2)
I really wish people would stop saying that.
So what? I wish people would stop saying a lot of things, but that's not relevant.
Websites are not carriers and were never carriers
and never claimed to be carriers.
They claimed to be platforms, not "common carriers".
Trump cared about censorship, but most everyone else cares about enforcement. Their words sound the same but they have completely different intents.
No, they don't. They want to be in control of what is posted on social media sites. The same weapon the [fake-ass] Democrats are promoting supposedly for good can be used by the Republicans for evil. We need freer speech, not less free speech, and the end result of a repeal of Section 230 is that everyone will have to face new challenges about
Alexander Bell copied your words. Stratton Oakmon (Score:2)
> I really wish people would stop saying that. Websites are not carriers and were never carriers since they publish (copy) content
I understand why you'd wish that. Unfortunately, your wish doesn't determine the law. Alexander Graham Bell copied the speaker's words, electrically over the wires, just the same. The telephone companies are common carriers, regardless of your wish.
One example case is Stratton Oakmont.
Stratton Oakmont, Inc. et al. v. Prodigy Services Company, et al., 1995 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 229,
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Trump's approach would have left websites vulnerable to lawsuits from wealthy people.
Biden's approach will leave websites vulnerable to legal action from current party-in-charge.
Which one is more corrupt? You decide.
Re: (Score:3)
Nitpick: Section 230 only shields the website owners from content posted by third parties, not for content they post themselves.
Also, they do not have to make "good faith efforts to shield users from" objectionable content to receive immunity for it, though they are required by law to make good faith efforts to remove some types of illegal content.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed one item on that list: "otherwise objectionable", which is a subjective criteria that allows the platform provider to remove content for any reason they feel is reasonable. For example, a forum on model trains could, without jeopardy, delete posts comparing the National Socialist German Worker's Party to the Socialist Unity Party of Germany. Allowing that sort of "censorship
Re: (Score:2)
See this post for the legal rule on interpreting those two words:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't say they can block "anything they want, for any reason or for no reason".
It most certainly does:
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;
Subsection (A) provided the means for site provider to block anything for any reason. I don't know if you're old enough to remember when this law was passed, but many (most?) of us here at the time predicted many scenarios that resemble the very situation we're in now. The only problem, as far as Republicans and Democrats are concerned, is that they thought themselves immune to its effects, and that it would only affect the proletariat. They were completely okay with that. But now tha
Re: (Score:2)
The wording there is unfortunate because you have to know a very specific legal rule to know how to interpret that list.
However, any attorney knows that it can't mean simply "anything they want", on the well-known general principle that the list has to mean *something*.
As it turns out, there is a specific legal rule for what it means when a statute has the form:
Specific example, specific example, specific example, general class.
See here for a detailed explanation.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The section is poorly structured in that it fails to explicitly draw lines around what is appropriate moderation and what is a publisher's editorial control (being only vaguely implied), or define what happens if that line is crossed. Thus, bad faith and/or political moderation has no penalty or means for redress. If your posts are deleted or hidden for reasons that are prima facie false, there's nothing you can do even though the act was clearly taken in bad faith. They can say,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OK question (Score:4, Insightful)
All that will happen if it's revoked is many people will immediately be censored.
Why? Because no platform could risk crazies (on the left and right) saying insane bullshit, and getting held liable.
Conservatives think they are being censored now, but if 230 is repealed, then they ain't seen nothing yet.
They'll never be allowed on mainstream platforms ever, because of the all the conspiracy theories and lies - no platform could risk giving them a platform. Easier to just block people that could cause them to be sued.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the very first time, this troll is an appropriate response.
Underhanded, backdoor wielding of the sword of liability, as a loophole through the first amendment, is indeed something they would be proud of.
Re: (Score:2)
We're about to lose the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
When S230 goes so goes the Internet. Expect it to be replaced with the DMCA for speech. Takedown notices and strikes and if you say something they don't like 3 times they'll yank your Internet access.
Re: (Score:3)
Once you've built the big machinery of political power, remember you won't always be the one to run it.
P. J. O'Rourke
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed. Trump wanted 230 repealed when Republicans were in power and Democrats opposed him. Now that Democrats are in power, they are taking the opposite position.
This is not a left-vs-right issue. It is an authoritarianism-vs-freedom issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Because democrats and republics are just different sides of the same coin. One is just as evil and corrupt as the other. They are going to say or do whatever to that keep them in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Events of the last four years, and especially the last couple of months, show that to be a flase equivalency. Many Democrats may be evil, and many may espouse policies I disagree with, but the Democratic party as a whole has not subordinated it's policies to a cult of personality and a simple lust for power regardless of po
Re: (Score:2)
The Republican party has
No they haven't, they both have. The democratic party is no different than the republican. Over the past 4 years the democratic party has done everything it can to block, harass, and basically undermine an elected official, no matter what the effect it had on the country. Right now this very second they are engaged in a decisive, unconstitutional process, that will fail, and probably lead to that unfit president being re-elected in 2024.
They are both just as evil and corrupt as they come. They both n
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is though. You the individual are liable for your posts, section 230 is about pretending the publisher is not as liable as you. Even, when they ALREADY, censor (so no change) and curate and promote and demote, changing what was public content, to their private version of public content. So push the legal liability back on real name social media, slashdot and the like that use anonymisers, are a whole different thing.
One thing is being twisted into another, publishers should be just as liable as th
Re: We're about to lose the Internet (Score:2)
Social media had become a digital social disease. Its infecting so many people with very few good aspects to it. Sure you can point to a handful of good things its done, just like someone can point to the fact that some serial rapist held the door for his elderly grandmother. At the end of the day the bad is dwarfing the good.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind, that current social media funds itself put pushing the worst and most wasteful forms of consumption in an era of catastrophic climate change
By god the buzzphrases of the moment fly fast. Sitting on your ass, thumbing stuff into your phone is nothing compared to driving out somewhere. Or, hell, watching TV.
If you care about that aspect of the environment, you should be giving social media companies an award.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Trump wanted 230 repealed when Republicans were in power and Democrats opposed him. Now that Democrats are in power, they are taking the opposite position.
Why are you being so disingenuous?
Biden was talking about repealing section 230 before he got into power.
This is not a left-vs-right issue. It is an authoritarianism-vs-freedom issue.
It's both. It's a deeply stupid move, and yet somehow the right manages to be worse about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Trump wanted 230 repealed when Republicans were in power and Democrats opposed him. Now that Democrats are in power, they are taking the opposite position.
This is not a left-vs-right issue. It is an authoritarianism-vs-freedom issue.
So very wrong. Trump was angry about censorship of his viewpoint and that of like minded people. Trump wants MAGAs to be able to say and do whatever they want online.
Everyone else on the other hand (including most other Republicans), view 230 as allowing websites to leave too much up.
The intent behind the action against 230 is completely opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
The intent behind the action against 230 is completely opposite.
In the only way that matters, it's exactly the same. In both cases it's about control over what We The People are allowed to say and do online. If they actually gave one fuck about the control these corporations exert over our lives, instead of just wanting to shut down free speech, they would BREAK UP THOSE CORPORATIONS. We already have the anti-trust laws in place to do it, but the Biden administration is pro-big-business so they would rather burn down the internet than actually take substantive correctiv
I disagree with O'Rourke (Score:3)
Big Government is like a box of loaded rifles you can't get rid of. I'd rather pick up a gun and defend myself then pretend the box isn't there.
Re: I disagree with O'Rourke (Score:2)
Big government will make sure that your box of rifles has a bunch of frozen and corroded firing pins. Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have. It is no different than any other plot to any after school special or lifetime movie ever created. All the foundation for abusive relationships exist when you let the government be front and center to solve all your problems. Eventually they will get frustrated at you for something some other country does, a
You're misunderstanding the analogy (Score:2)
Government is what you make it. People who tell you to strive for small government are generally doing so in the hopes that you'll refuse to participate in Government and leave a power vacuum they can fill.
A good example is the constant calls for Austerity and Tax Cuts. You get a tiny, short term cut and they get a massive, permanent one. Then your servi
Re: (Score:2)
how about just insisting on making sure the government keeps their hands, opinions, and everything else out of certain topics? the bigger the overreach, the less success you will have. I am a huge believer in the right to be left alone. the biggest problem with the government providing things is eventually they start putting limits on your access unless you comply with something else.
examples? The federal government powers are actually quite limited in the constitution, and yet they use the Commerce clause
Re: (Score:2)
ftfpj
"We're gonna wreck 230 unless you censor harrasement. Oh, and start with the harrassing tweets of our political opponents!"
"Sir, yes sir!", they cried.
Wtf did you think was gonna happen? Now these companies worth trillions collectively are a hypergigantic, target rich environment for lawyers.
This is utterly outrageous and a full throated violation of the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
because it lets the rest of us say and do what we want online
Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but weren't you a big supporter of de-platforming?
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but weren't you a big supporter of de-platforming?
You do know that this is exactly what Section 230 is for, right? It's specifically for removing content. That can include removing users. Of course, it's not about removing them from the internet, as you imply. It's about removing them from specific sites, who don't owe them a soapbox.
Re:We're about to lose the Internet (Score:4, Informative)
When S230 goes so goes the Internet. Expect it to be replaced with the DMCA for speech. Takedown notices and strikes and if you say something they don't like 3 times they'll yank your Internet access.
Real-world punishment already happens in Thailand, from Thai Hotel That Put American in Jail Gets New Label on Tripadvisor [nytimes.com] (and other earlier sources):
The resort hotel in Thailand got its public apology. The unhappy American guest who spent two nights in jail for criticizing the hotel online got his criminal charges dropped. But it was Tripadvisor, the giant online travel review platform, that got the last word.
Wesley Barnes, the American traveler who was arrested after being charged with criminal defamation for posting critical reviews of the Sea View resort on the island of Koh Chang, quietly left Thailand this week.
With Mr. Barnes safely out of the country, Tripadvisor took punitive action on Wednesday against the resort, posting a one-of-a-kind notice on the Sea View’s page warning travelers that the hotel was behind the jailing of a guest for his harsh reviews.
Wonder if Thailand is now planning to put Tripadvisor in jail?
Re: (Score:3)
If our pathetic, self-serving government politicians do anything the next few years, it should be to swing the weight of the US to keep the international high seas of Internet open under First Amendment rules, just like the high seas are for trade.
What a shame if the Internet turns into an ocean where only the near shores of America don't have to watch out for piracy.
But looking at this development, Magic 8 Ball just slipped from "outlook fuzzy" to "outlook not so good".
You can do what you want...like parler and Trump? (Score:2)
Uh, you can't do what you want on the Internet. Ask the Trumpsters.
The beauty of the internet... (Score:2)
When S230 goes so goes the Internet. Expect it to be replaced with the DMCA for speech.
One of the beautiful things about the internet though is that it is international. If the US screws up its free speech laws for the internet (which is not yet clear) then the sites where people discuss things will move to countries where that speech is still protected. The result will be a situation much like what happened with copyright: sharing sites moved out of the US when the US law changed.
The US then pursued a policy through trade agreements to get similar laws passed in other countries but it is
Re: (Score:2)
The US exploded with Internet power because it had 230, and other countries didn't, allowing lawsuits for any missed liable postings.
The wise country elsewhere should immediately create a section 230 to i hale trillions of dollars of company, fleeing the US, for just this reason.
Re:We're about to lose the Internet (Score:5, Interesting)
It's too early to tell what the goal is, until the details come through. At this point, it's just preliminary and pretty empty announcements. It's beneficial now for these politicians to get up on the soapbox because nobody likes the social media companies. For different reasons, sure - but when you're not presenting a specific plan, the constituency can read whatever they want into it. A vague "fight against social media" is one of the few talking points in 2021 that won't drive immediate division among voters.
The way I see it, "Repeal and replace 230" might turn out like "Repeal and replace Obamacare"... a meaningless phrase, from which a plan never materializes.
Re: We're about to lose the Internet (Score:3)
Its funny that you see this as something soon to happen, whereas I see it as something that happened somewhere between 2005 and 2010. The internet has not been free since around 2005. Roughly around the time smartphones started putting more people on the internet with a basic tutorial on internet etiquette. The government will do a dog and pony show pretending to protect speech. What is going to evolve is another undernet. Your going to have your basic Speakeasy sites for unmonitored dialog. It might even d
Re: (Score:2)
The internet has not been free since around 2005
Hasn't it? Today, you have places like 4chan, 8chan, stormfront, the American Nahtzee Party and a whole bunch of other bottom feeders operating just fine. Even the full force of the American political machine as bought and paid for by the MPAA and RIAA (we're still allowed to hate those guys here, right?) has been unable to knock Kim Dotcom, Mega and the Pirate Bay off the internet, and they have really, really tried with every dirty trick in the book.
Where's
Re: (Score:2)
try to set up a completely anonymous identity these days.... everything is tied to a real identity. Email accounts often require a phone number to validate, many sites require 2FA now. You can no longer get a phone number without tying it to a real identity either. In order to get a burner phone your going to end up providing information that by itself requires entirely another hurdle to anonymize (credit cards that wont reject authorization because pre-paid CC wont process). Hell the CC restrictions themse
Re: (Score:2)
try to set up a completely anonymous identity these days.... everything is tied to a real identity.
What do you mean by "a completely anonymous identity"? You're pretty anonymous posting to the chans. And there are hosting providers that accept bitcoin. Prior to the internet this was flat-out impossible to have any real anonymity. And more or less everything is encrypted now, which definitely was not a thing in the past.
Email accounts often require a phone number to validate, many sites require 2FA now.
Often
Re: (Score:2)
Re: We're about to lose the Internet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Section 230 was an important rule for fostering the growth of the Internet, and the entire Social Media industry. However, it was intended with that in mind - not stifling growth of these fledgling services under massive regulatory burden that they couldn't possibly maintain while still in the cradle.
However, the companies now hiding behind Section 230 have more annual revenue than many States in the Union. Are you really telling me that they somehow have the power to near-instantly react and take down co
Re: (Score:2)
A guy who likes borderline communism (to be generous) is on board with censorship? Say it ain't so!
Here's What's Going to Happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Raimondo said that she would use the tools available through the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to convene stakeholders, industry leaders, lawmakers and others to identify the means of reform to the pivotal internet law.
My prediction:
Said "stakeholders and industry leaders", together with ignorant (but possibly well-meaning) "lawmakers", will enact legislation that will effectively grant exemptions and loopholes for existing tech giants such as Twitter, Youtube and Facebook but will make it so expensive for small start-ups to comply with the "reformed" 230 regulations that these tech giants will actually secure themselves real, government-secured monopolies. Everything that the people who wanted S230 to be repealed / reformed feared and said was true is actually going to become true.
User generated content will continue to be a thing, but only on large social media platforms. Classic forums, consumer review sites, hypothetical start-ups that we have yet to imagine will cease to be a reality or will never get off the ground in the first place due to the potential legal liability being way too costly.
Re: Here's What's Going to Happen (Score:2)
And yet they do it every damn time. Its like people that cheat on their spouse and marry their mistress. Then later get shocked when the second marriage winds up in a storm of adultery. Ive been watching both sides do this every time there is a big polar swing. This is primarily why there are swings to begin with. They never make good on the one promise, to put and end to that shit.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet they do it every damn time. Its like people that cheat on their spouse and marry their mistress. Then later get shocked when the second marriage winds up in a storm of adultery. Ive been watching both sides do this every time there is a big polar swing. This is primarily why there are swings to begin with. They never make good on the one promise, to put and end to that shit.
Regardless of the (in)validity of Trump's words and policies the last four years, I see several newspaper columns in the future by people supporting 230 changes along the lines of "Rats! Republicans turned one of our best Trump attack methods...against us!?!?!"
It happened before twice, once when Trump won and there was terror the social media cancelling would be turned against the left, and earlier, when Bush entered Bagdhad, and people were ripping down Saddam statues (which didn't pan out so well, but wa
WTF is section 230? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can the editors at least write a short statement for us who are not lawyers, so we can be spared one Google search?
Section 230 [wikipedia.org] is immunity from liability from hosting third-party content, i.e. I can't sue Facebook for having /Vazi groups. Or for banning them.
Re: (Score:2)
If you own a virgin forest and leave it alone, and someone walks through and is killed by a widowmaker branch, they can't sue you.
If you start trimming the branches for safety, and miss one, and it kills someone, they can sue you.
With section 230, you can trim the dead branches and not have to worry about getting sued if you miss one.
Now imagine the branches are every potentially libelous rando statement posted by the billions every day.
Change: maybe. Repeal: no. (Score:2)
I think it should be made very clear that there is a distinct difference between modifying section 230 and repealing it. Repealing it is completely unworkable because it would mean if you run a site you are responsible for 100% of stuff or you have to leave everything up, even spam and content explicitly designed to consume resources.
I think the best way to reform 230 in a meaningful way would be to insist that disinformation/misinformation must be removed as part of the site moderation requirement.
Before
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that if some group controls the very definition of disinformation, they can do the hell they want with it.
"Saying that google sell all your data is disinformation"
Re: (Score:2)
There is no black and white, only gray. Even well intentioned lines in the sand are doomed because the sand always shifts.
You could try to address misinformation campaigns, but you still have the problem of defining what is organized vs grassroots campaigns. I remember after 9/11 being curious about some of the conspiracy theories, I remember acquaintances buying up guns before Obama’s inauguration saying that the right was going to be taken away (with references to cold dead hands). I remember my r
Re: (Score:3)
I think the best way to reform 230 in a meaningful way would be to insist that disinformation/misinformation must be removed as part of the site moderation requirement.
This will likely fail on First Amendment grounds; the government cannot make content or viewpoint-based laws regarding speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Before someone reflexively screams, "you want a ministry of truth!" like a baboon that's had it's banana stolen, should it come to it then the courts would decide if the site was in compliance.
I.e. a ministry of truth. A Ministry of Compliance to Truth.
Jeebus H., are people even trying today? Do you understand the First Amendment forbids the outlawing of lies, especially about politicians, lest the government become the arbiter of truth?
It's a shit pill, but the alternative...? We should not be coming this close to finding out.
There are other solutions to falsehoods. Traditionally this involves more speech. Also traditionally, this involves a ministry of truth in places without a first amend
Re: (Score:2)
Do you understand the First Amendment forbids the outlawing of lies, especially about politicians, lest the government become the arbiter of truth?
Yet another person who doesn't understand the First Amendment. The First Amendment prevents you from being jailed for speech, especially political and religious speech. Non-compliance with section 230 does not result in anyone being jailed.
There are other solutions to falsehoods. Traditionally this involves more speech.
Perhaps traditionally but these are not traditional times as one cannot listen to every person on the internet or read every opinion, it's literally not possible.
Your arguments are poorly thought out.
Workaround going forward (Score:4, Interesting)
Section 230 grants corporations immunity from liability for hosting third-party content, so people just need to make everything fourth-party content, like Trump often does, by starting every post with, "Many people are saying ..." :-)
Then everything will just be hearsay.
Perhaps the companies can automate this for us.
I don't understand (Score:3, Insightful)
If twitter, FB, reddit and slashdot shut down tomorrow, who really cares? I mean, really, my words will convince those of you with points to spend them to mod me up or down based on your leaning and how strongly you agree or disagree with me, but what real, lasting effect will my words here have?
I'm sure some people will claim that they will lose their voice if 230 is struck down, taking with it their chance to be heard. I would lose my voice too, because I'm nobody, just like they are. The only difference is that I'm self aware enough to know that if my voice was squelched by the elimination of 230 and social media, as far as society is concerned, it wouldn't matter.
If you agree with me, my words aren't going to make you agree any more. If you disagree, its not like my words will make you question your own beliefs and take a different position.
I come from the days when there were 4 channels on TV and news was news and not commentary. I can't see a single benefit that commentary on TV or online now given society, the ability to post online anything you might be thinking has really done nothing positive for society, in fact I see only negative outcomes from it.
Doubting government at all levels. Doubting science. Discarding faith, friends and family because we now get to see the deepest darkest thoughts and leanings we used to privately hold. Getting people to vote against their own interests because issues have labels such as "socialist" or "fascist" attached them by big money interests with hidden agendas, when in reality they are nothing more than slightly left or slightly right of center. Painting anyone that disagrees as an enemy and the only option is their destruction. Shaming family, friends and neighbors on social media platforms like FB and NextDoor because somehow that will get them to change a behavior. Propagating misinformation as truth, convincing large groups of people to believe patently obvious false ideas that they fall victim to because "if you can read it on the internet it must be real."
Seriously, against all of those bad outcomes, what good do we have to show from it? You connected with an elementary school mate that otherwise you'd have no connection to because life took you in opposite directions? I mean, really, there's like zero benefits I can think of, and I've been trying.
So please, repeal 230 and let this all go away, labeled as the largest failed experiment of modern society.
Re: (Score:2)
So please, repeal 230 and let this all go away, labeled as the largest failed experiment of modern society.
The thing I find is that forums that have a shared interest (Slashdot etc) tend to regulate and moderate themselves just fine. The problems are all pretty much Facebook and Twitter which encourage everyone to broadcast their stupid opinions to as many complete strangers as possible. This is not a recipe for success.
Also FB an Twitter discourage long form responses and discussion which is a recipe for disaster. Maybe restrict 230 only to services that allow long form interactions?
Re: (Score:2)
"Too much free speech. God damn it!"
Re:I don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
If twitter, FB, reddit and slashdot shut down tomorrow, who really cares?
So please, repeal 230 and let this all go away, labeled as the largest failed experiment of modern society.
So you want the internet to turn into cable-tv? To stupidly consume content pushed to you by the big corporations? To become a passive cog in corporate America who will decide what you see and hear?
That anyone modded you insightful is astonishing, because your whole post preaches internet-nihilism, while you long for the "good old days". There never was any "good old days", news have always been commentary, and very very biased at that.
Re:I don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
If twitter, FB, reddit and slashdot shut down tomorrow, who really cares?
You clearly will since you are taking the effort to post here you must to some extent care. If you didn't care on some level we wouldn't be having this conversation. Be honest with yourself.
Also anyone who gives the slightest crap about freedom will care. Now I think twitter is a garbage fire, and I hate facebook, but if people didn't have the freedom to start sites like that would be a serious blow to freedom.
as far as society is concerned, it wouldn't matter.
You, personally? No. Everyone vaguely like you, yes. Yes society would care.
If you agree with me, my words aren't going to make you agree any more. If you disagree, its not like my words will make you question your own beliefs and take a different position.
See I think you are being fundamentally dishonest with yourself here. You care enough to post, so clearly you do care.
I can't see a single benefit that commentary on TV or online now given society, the ability to post online anything you might be thinking has really done nothing positive for society, in fact I see only negative outcomes from it.
So why are you commenting then? All your doing is harking back to old days that never existed while ignoring tons of amazing stuff that is indeed posted as user generated content. For any hobby or profession or interest you might have there is almost certainly an online community talking about and discussing interesting aspects of it. If you've never bothered to find them, instead stewing in the worst of twitter, the fault is not with society.
Doubting government at all levels. Doubting science. Discarding faith, friends and family because we now get to see the deepest darkest thoughts and leanings we used to privately hold. Getting people to vote against their own interests because issues have labels such as "socialist" or "fascist" attached them by big money interests with hidden agendas, when in reality they are nothing more than slightly left or slightly right of center.
Maybe if you pulled your head out of your bubble and started looking at the useful things people have posted, e.g. finding some long form history amateur channels on youtube, you would see that these things have happened before the internet, and happened in the golden era you think we should return to.
Seriously, against all of those bad outcomes, what good do we have to show from it? You connected with an elementary school mate that otherwise you'd have no connection to because life took you in opposite directions? I mean, really, there's like zero benefits I can think of, and I've been trying.
Do you have any hobbies or interests at all?
Re: (Score:2)
If twitter, FB, reddit and slashdot shut down tomorrow, who really cares?
People in favor of free speech. I see you aren't one of them.
I come from the days when there were 4 channels on TV and news was news and not commentary.
And if my parents didn't need progress, neither do I!
Re: (Score:3)
I don't drive a car to work so I see no value in you owning a car. Air pollution, noise pollution, road rage, collisions with major injuries and deaths, drunk driving etc. All I see are negative outcomes.
So please, repeal driver's licenses, public roadways, make vehicles illegal and let this all go away, labeled as the largest failed experiment of modern society.
The fact that you don't see the value in something that other people derive value from, and the fact that it might be a double-edge sword, ought to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I had mod points today, I'd mod that down.
Well, not really, because there's no "-1 incorrect", and I don't think that your post is flamebait or trolling.
Is job creation a good enough excuse? (Score:2)
The professional social media fact checker jobs can go to hell for all I care.
LOL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree with your assessment. I think that Trump did want it, and I don't think it would have harmed him at all. His goal was to prevent Twitter from editorializing about the accuracy of his comments, and to avoid being deplatformed. Repeal of Section 230 might well have accomplished both of those things, because it doesn't only offer protection from user content, it also offers protection from removal of user content. He could have argued that the people depend on receiving his tweets, and remained o
Re: (Score:2)
This has to be a process (Score:2)
No one is going to throw out Section 230 without replacing it with something else. They have to take input from everyone and try to balance the different needs of users, platforms, corporations and governments. Articles don't help when they jump on the idea that Biden wants to "revoke" Section 230. These people are not idiots running on instinct, just saying whatever pops into their head thinking they can make rash decisions without having a clear plan. I would be extremely surprised if anyone in the new ad
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)