Repeal Section 230 and Its Platform Protections, Urges New Bipartisan US Bill (eff.org) 168
U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said Friday he was moving to file a bipartisan bill to repeal Section 230 of America's Communications Decency Act.
"The law prevents most civil suits against users or services that are based on what others say," explains an EFF blog post. "Experts argue that a repeal of Section 230 could kill free speech on the internet," writes LiveMint — though America's last two presidents both supported a repeal: During his first presidency, U.S. President Donald Trump called to repeal the law and signed an executive order attempting to curb some of its protections, though it was challenged in court. Subsequently, former President Joe Biden also voiced his opinion against the law.
An EFF blog post explains the case for Section 230: Congress passed this bipartisan legislation because it recognized that promoting more user speech online outweighed potential harms. When harmful speech takes place, it's the speaker that should be held responsible, not the service that hosts the speech... Without Section 230, the Internet is different. In Canada and Australia, courts have allowed operators of online discussion groups to be punished for things their users have said. That has reduced the amount of user speech online, particularly on controversial subjects. In non-democratic countries, governments can directly censor the internet, controlling the speech of platforms and users. If the law makes us liable for the speech of others, the biggest platforms would likely become locked-down and heavily censored. The next great websites and apps won't even get started, because they'll face overwhelming legal risk to host users' speech.
But "I strongly believe that Section 230 has long outlived its use," Senator Whitehouse said this week, saying Section 230 "a real vessel for evil that needs to come to an end." "The laws that Section 230 protect these big platforms from are very often laws that go back to the common law of England, that we inherited when this country was initially founded. I mean, these are long-lasting, well-tested, important legal constraints that have — they've met the test of time, not by the year or by the decade, but by the century.
"And yet because of this crazy Section 230, these ancient and highly respected doctrines just don't reach these people. And it really makes no sense, that if you're an internet platform you get treated one way; you do the exact same thing and you're a publisher, you get treated a completely different way.
"And so I think that the time has come.... It really makes no sense... [Testimony before the committee] shows how alone and stranded people are when they don't have the chance to even get justice. It's bad enough to have to live through the tragedy... But to be told by a law of Congress, you can't get justice because of the platform — not because the law is wrong, not because the rule is wrong, not because this is anything new — simply because the wrong type of entity created this harm."
"The law prevents most civil suits against users or services that are based on what others say," explains an EFF blog post. "Experts argue that a repeal of Section 230 could kill free speech on the internet," writes LiveMint — though America's last two presidents both supported a repeal: During his first presidency, U.S. President Donald Trump called to repeal the law and signed an executive order attempting to curb some of its protections, though it was challenged in court. Subsequently, former President Joe Biden also voiced his opinion against the law.
An EFF blog post explains the case for Section 230: Congress passed this bipartisan legislation because it recognized that promoting more user speech online outweighed potential harms. When harmful speech takes place, it's the speaker that should be held responsible, not the service that hosts the speech... Without Section 230, the Internet is different. In Canada and Australia, courts have allowed operators of online discussion groups to be punished for things their users have said. That has reduced the amount of user speech online, particularly on controversial subjects. In non-democratic countries, governments can directly censor the internet, controlling the speech of platforms and users. If the law makes us liable for the speech of others, the biggest platforms would likely become locked-down and heavily censored. The next great websites and apps won't even get started, because they'll face overwhelming legal risk to host users' speech.
But "I strongly believe that Section 230 has long outlived its use," Senator Whitehouse said this week, saying Section 230 "a real vessel for evil that needs to come to an end." "The laws that Section 230 protect these big platforms from are very often laws that go back to the common law of England, that we inherited when this country was initially founded. I mean, these are long-lasting, well-tested, important legal constraints that have — they've met the test of time, not by the year or by the decade, but by the century.
"And yet because of this crazy Section 230, these ancient and highly respected doctrines just don't reach these people. And it really makes no sense, that if you're an internet platform you get treated one way; you do the exact same thing and you're a publisher, you get treated a completely different way.
"And so I think that the time has come.... It really makes no sense... [Testimony before the committee] shows how alone and stranded people are when they don't have the chance to even get justice. It's bad enough to have to live through the tragedy... But to be told by a law of Congress, you can't get justice because of the platform — not because the law is wrong, not because the rule is wrong, not because this is anything new — simply because the wrong type of entity created this harm."
We've done the experiment (Score:2, Interesting)
"Congress passed this bipartisan legislation because it recognized that promoting more user speech online outweighed potential harms."
Well, we've tried it for nearly 30 years. Has it outweighed them?
Re:We've done the experiment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We've done the experiment (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than re-write the law, take a look at who it applies to. It should only apply to the internet service providers, be it Comcast, Charter, Cox, FIOS, or mobile internet carriers like Verizon, T-Mobile or AT&T. It should not apply to the likes of Fakebook, Twitter/X, Alphabet (YouTube) and others, since they do have the prerogative of banning users for any reasons. So opinions hosted on their platforms aren't something they should be shielded from, unless they had an absolute zero censorship policy
Re:We've done the experiment (Score:5, Informative)
opinions hosted on their platforms aren't something they should be shielded from, unless they had an absolute zero censorship policy
The purpose of Section 230 is to protect free speech for individuals, which will be lost if the operators of platforms can be held accountable for what they say there. That's why the ability of the operators of the platforms to ban or not ban users both is and should be completely irrelevant to whether those platforms receive section 230 protections, and you are therefore demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of the purpose and function of section 230.
Further, your demonstration of ignorance is only magnified by your insistence that social networks differ from ISPs in being able to refuse to do business with specific customers. In fact, ISPs can terminate their relationship with paying customers for a variety of reasons, including not being profitable or even simply being objectionable to do business with.
Re: We've done the experiment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the halfway house is that platforms keep their section 230 protections, but must identify any users that post illegal content
So now you want sites to verify ID before people can post, so that they can be ID'd if some content they posted is deemed illegal? Think about that one some more.
Re:We've done the experiment (Score:5, Insightful)
So many people today seem to be buying into oversimplified solutions to our problems and lack the imagination to see the consequences of enacting these solutions. If lawmakers are dumb enough to pass this, I believe society will eventually recognize the magnitude of those consequences, but can we use our imaginations first instead of this trial-and-error spaghetti-against-the-wall method of legislation?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how many hotheads there are on all sides of the political spectrum and how eager some of them are to use insult to attack anybody who doesn't agree with them, I'd be astonished if there weren't insult campaigns already being planned so that they can be launched as soon as possible after this section gets repealed.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of S230 is that platforms like twitter don't have to pre-approve comments before publication. It would be impossible for them to do at that scale, even in the Musk era, without a very inaccurate automated system.
Responding to reports of another thing and not protected.
What you described is repealing s230 (Score:3, Insightful)
Section 230 is not common carrier. Anyone telling you that it is is trying to eliminate it.
A whole bunch of trolls and assholes are jonesing for the idea that they can have the internet treated as common carrier and spread their nonsense troll posts without any consequences. That is the only organic support for what you're describing that exists.
Common carri
Re: (Score:2)
I'd disagree.
Multiple examples of fraudulent coercion in elections, multiple examples of American plutocrats attempting to trigger armed insurrections in European nations, multiple "free speech" spaces that are "free speech" only if you're on the side that they support, and multiple suicides from cyberharassment, doxing, and swatting, along with a few murder-by-swatting events.
But very very very little evidence of any actual benefits. With a SNR that would look great on a punk album but is terrible for actu
Re: (Score:2)
Multiple examples of fraudulent coercion in elections, multiple examples of American plutocrats attempting to trigger armed insurrections in European nations, multiple "free speech" spaces that are "free speech" only if you're on the side that they support, and multiple suicides from cyberharassment, doxing, and swatting, along with a few murder-by-swatting events.
What makes you think that these will stop if Section 230 is repealed? In fact, what is likely to happen is that this type of "speech" will be the only thing left.
Perhaps you don't really understand Section 230?
Re: (Score:2)
230 prevents sites from being prosecuted. So, right now, they do b all moderation of any kind (except to eliminate speech for the other side).
Remove 230 and sites become liable for most of the abuses. Those sites don't have anything like the pockets of those abusing them. The sites have two options - risk a lot of lawsuits (as they're softer targets) or become "private" (which avoids any liability as nobody who would be bothered would be bothered spending money on them). Both of these deal with the issue -
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some good has come from promoting more user speech online, but also a lot of bullying, harassment, echo chambers, doxxing, stochastic terrorism, and so on.
Does the good outweigh the bad? Maybe, maybe not.
Re: We've done the experiment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: We've done the experiment (Score:5, Insightful)
This; if a platform is informed of illegal behavior, they ought to have liability to take it down.
Clear, simple and utterly wrong. Who can report? Anyone? Who gets to decide if it is illegal? How quickly does the platform have to respond.
Look at how the Copyright takedown notices work today. Platforms are flooded with such notices, many of which come from sources unrelated to the copyright holder, or who misrepresent copyright ownership, or who ignore fair use. The result is that lots of items get taken down for bogus reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
You make it sound as dangerous as a 1775 soap box that people like Sam Adams would stand upon and shout from, or a pamphlet-printing-press that someone like Thomas Paine might use, where in both cases the goal was often to rowse the rabble into protest and action.
But is the internet really that dangerous?
Re:We've done the experiment (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
Let's be clear on the purpose of this campaign: Trump and the GOP have got control of the big platforms. Those big platforms can withstand the loss of Section 230.
Repealing Section 230 would result in thousands (millions?) of small platforms shutting down. Those big platforms don't want the competition and some (all?) of the GOP is on board with this, now that they control the big platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Repealing Section 230 would result in thousands (millions?) of small platforms shutting down.
Including Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot is already shutting down, just slowly. Don't believe me, open up a private browsing window and click the sign-up button.
Re: (Score:2)
The Dems are sponsoring this repeal bill.
Thus showing how stupid some Dems (mostly the "establishment Democrats") are and why the Dems need some new blood.
Re: We've done the experiment (Score:3)
Repealing Section 230 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
would result in news organisations, big platforms (== social media) censoring opinions that they believe that Trump does not like as they fear being sued for displaying them. There is no doubt that the opinions would be attacked in a partisan way -- this is already happening, Trump has sued media for saying things that he does not like.
This would result in suppression of anti Trump opinion - this is what he wants to try to bolster his waning popularity and destroy USA democracy.
Re:Repealing Section 230 ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I’m against repealing prop 230, but a repeal wouldn’t necessarily hand the right wing any sort of advantage.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
230 is only about user-supplied content.
Re:Repealing Section 230 ... (Score:4, Informative)
230 is only about user-supplied content.
This. I seldom mod-up ACs, but I'd mod-up this one if I had the points.
Frankly, I'm torn on this. The First Amendment of the US constitution protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other.
In a narrow context, once could argue that 230 suppresses an individual's right to sue a provider for content on their platform, even if the provider doesn't create that content. And that might be an important right to protect. After all, many platforms allow users to be anonymous, or at least pseudonymous. In that situation, who can you sue if not the provider?
On the other hand, we all want to be able to express ourselves freely online. But there are rules for most online forums, and you can get expelled if you break them. And this is where some would muddy the water on this issue, claiming free speech is suppressed when you get expelled. No, the provider also has First Amendment rights, so they can expel whoever they wish. (Again, the First Amendment doesn't protect us from each other.) And that's true with or without 230.
And finally, others have suggested that governments could sue social-media companies for (user) content if 230 is repealed, thus shaping public narrative about their policies. Well, I don't see how that behavior squares with the First Amendment. Trump has sued major media companies. That sounds questionable, and some companies have settled with the government rather that go to trial, but I think we need to have a trial on this issue to confirm that the First Amendment protects media from government lawsuits.
TL/DR: I can understand social-media companies wanting the protection of 230, but they already have the right to remove content that could get them sued, so maybe we don't need 230. I don't think we should be counting on social media for unbiased reporting of news events anyway. Yeah, I understand that non-government entities with big pockets could put litigious pressure on social-media companies, but they'd have to have standing to even get started with a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You sue the John Doe, then during discovery, you subpoena the platform to get the IP address of the poster. Then you subpoena the ISP that owns the AS associated with that IP for the user information of the account that was assigned that IP at the time of posting. Now you have a name and address to serve papers to.
If one of those two didn't keep logs, or the IP can't be t
Re: (Score:2)
The campaign to repeal 230 started when the MAGA folks got their noses tweaked over Twitter enforcing their ToS and some of their influencers getting banned because they were spouting white supremacist rhetoric.
As I understand it, Twitter/X can do that even without 230.
Re: (Score:2)
The campaign to repeal 230 started when the MAGA folks got their noses tweaked over Twitter enforcing their ToS and some of their influencers getting banned because they were spouting white supremacist rhetoric.
As I understand it, Twitter/X can do that even without 230.
Or are you saying the MAGAnauts wanted to sue Twitter for kicking them off? Is that what 230 keeps them from doing? I thought it was protection from content that is posted, not protection from policing on their platform.
Re:Repealing Section 230 ... (Score:4, Interesting)
From here [techdirt.com]: ... made it liable for all content on the platform."
"Section 230 was a direct response to Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, where a judge ruled that Prodigy's active moderation
Deleting accounts because of what they posted would be considered 'active moderation'.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you have a name and address to serve papers to.
It's not the early 2000s anymore. Courts now recognise that an IP address doesn't identify a person. You're not serving papers to anyone and even if you are they'll quickly get your claim thrown out.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue isn't that platform don't have the right to moderate as they see fit without 230. The issue is that platforms can become liable to all sorts of novel litigation if they don't heavily regulate every bit of content (comments, videos, etc.) that a user posts. They will have to have armies of lawyers on staff to constantly research all the ways they could get sued for something you might post and extensive resources to police the content more so than they already do.
230 by and large shields platforms
Re: (Score:2)
Not having 230 protections means platforms will likely heavily clamp down on what users can say, do, etc. to the point that you will likely see a lot of websites (mainly smaller ones) shutting down simply because the liability is too great and more draconian moderation from big tech websites that can afford to do moderation at scale.
Or basically the death of online anonymity, as platform operators will demand ID verification and make you agree to a pass-through liability as part of their TOS (if they get sued for something you said, then you'll be sued by them to recover their loss).
Ironically, X actually already charges its users for the privilege of knowing exactly who they are.
Re: (Score:2)
TL/DR: I can understand social-media companies wanting the protection of 230, but they already have the right to remove content that could get them sued, so maybe we don't need 230.
That they can now take down content is irrelevant to being sued for it. It can't be taken down prior to it being posted, unless you're reviewing everything before it goes public. So the suits happen - that's expressly why a law like 230 is needed.
A mom n pop store that allows reviews of purchases could be bankrupted over a single user review that contains copyrighted text.
230 has flaws that should be fixed, but the concept it represents is absolutely vital to the current internet. The *only* companies t
Re:Repealing Section 230 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree except it is pretty clear trump would pardon or vacate any fine against a right winger org.
230 is about lawsuits, not fines.
Re: (Score:2)
Section 230 is about civil liability for platforms that host user-supplied content. It's about people suing platforms because they think your speech caused some kind of harm to them and they ought to have done something about it before that alleged harm happened. Nothing to do with the government issuing fines.
Re: (Score:2)
How many people can afford to sue Trump?
Nothing to do with the merits of the dispute, but the cost of Trump's litigation strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
The president does not yet have pardoning power over civil judgements. Maybe a constitutional amendment to do that is coming, but we haven't had a vote on it yet.
Re: (Score:3)
Without 230, the networks would have to suppress a solid 3/4 that guys speech, or open themselves up to a hurricane of civil lawsuits.
Completely wrong.
Iâ(TM)m against repealing prop 230, but a repeal wouldnâ(TM)t necessarily hand the right wing any sort of advantage.
As long as they control the supreme court, yes it absolutely would. You are 100% incorrect in a way that implies not only abject but also willful ignorance.
Section 230 protects people and organizations who run websites which allow the public to post content to them without approval from prosecution, so long as they comply with certain legal requirements like declaring your point of contact for having material which remains unlawful removed, which in turn requires that you pay a yearly fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Section 230 protects people and organizations who run websites which allow the public to post content to them without approval from prosecution, so long as they comply with certain legal requirements like declaring your point of contact for having material which remains unlawful removed, which in turn requires that you pay a yearly fee. (This requirement is not part of section 230, it was instituted later.) This registration and fee is itself a restraint on free speech, but that's not what we're here to talk about and I mention it only in passing.
I don't understand how that follows. A requirement that someone needs to be registered on a site for communication purposes does not sound like a suppression of free speech by the government. Nor does a fee, which if I understand correctly, is not "required" by the provider to charge, and is not collected by the government.
Re: (Score:2)
A requirement that someone needs to be registered on a site for communication purposes does not sound like a suppression of free speech by the government. Nor does a fee, which if I understand correctly, is not "required" by the provider to charge, and is not collected by the government.
It is the fee which amounts to suppression, and you do not understand correctly. You do not get safe harbor protections if you do not register with the feds and pay a fee. Educate yourself before you "try" again.
Re: (Score:2)
So, it sounds like you're saying the Feds want the provider's contact info, and the Feds collect the fee from them. The user is not involved, as I mistakenly thought. (It's the provider, not the user, who wants Safe Harbor here.)
That still doesn't sound like a restraint on free speech. Governments need contact info from people and organizations in order to function. And occasionally they charge fees for certain services. If the fees aren't excessive, I don't see a problem with them.
Now, if the government tr
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, sorry. I didn't realize you're that close to the issue. And that it affects you in that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Gov't has many, many, many regulations including fees attached to them. If you want to 'run a business' you pay ridiculous amounts of fees.
1st Amend also allows people to complain about said fees.
Doesn't make them remotely unconstitutional or a chill on speech.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no idea what you're talking about.
230 requires *providers* to have a way to report content - not users.
The definition of a provider is wider than most people understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Section 230 protects people and organizations who run websites which allow the public to post content to them without approval from prosecution, so long as they comply with certain legal requirements like declaring your point of contact for having material which remains unlawful removed, which in turn requires that you pay a yearly fee. (This requirement is not part of section 230, it was instituted later.)
Huh? This is the first I've heard of this and wasn't able to find anything about registration and a fee being required for section 230 protection. ChatGPT said the DMCA safe harbor provisions of the DMCA require registration of an agent who will receive takedown notices, but that's something like a $6 fee (and it's in regard to a totally different law which is really only applicable if you'd be dealing with the possibility of users uploading pirated content).
It would not cut both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
This would only eliminate dissenting opinions from the center and left. The right wing is heavily backed by billionaires and could shrug off any lawsuits or problems.
Re: (Score:3)
This would only eliminate dissenting opinions from the center and left. The right wing is heavily backed by billionaires and could shrug off any lawsuits or problems.
Actually, it's crazier than that - X managed to convince some of its users to actually pay for the privilege of de-anonymizing themselves to the platform. That makes it really easy to sue the person who got you sued.
Re:Repealing Section 230 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It will result in suppression of all anti- power/wealth opinion, i.e. all criticism of government or big-pocketed business.
This change is sponsored by litigious motherfuckers. Trump is only the instance-du-jour, a few percent of the overall threat, though very much a shining example of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Excepting that news organizations, big platforms,... are publishers, and therefore not supposed to be covered by the Section 230 protections. The latter is only supposed to protect the carriers (Comcast, Verizon, T-Mobile,....), who transmit that, given that they're just transmitting that data from the creator to the platforms, and separately, from the platforms to the subscriber.
Suing people/companies for defamation is perfectly legal, and while politicians are not above the law, they're not below it ei
Re: (Score:2)
"A common carrier is a very specific thing that has nothing to do with websites and less than nothing to do with Section 230."
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/... [techdirt.com]
Re:Repealing Section 230 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This basically means that any user-supplied content will need to be filtered by whoever is hosting the content - otherwise the host will risk bankruptcy (the very reason Section 230 passed in the first place). I have no idea who it will ultimately benefit if there is a repeal, but the ability to freely comment will be greatly restricted. It will force most smaller forums to remove comments - who can possibly accept the liability of anyone freely posting?
It doesn't matter if it a small or large business. Freely commenting anywhere will become a thing of the past unless you host your own site (and filter any comments if you allow comments..)
I am not saying I like the current online situation... it definitely biases towards outrage. But a repeal of Section 230 will be very, very bad for the internet as we know it. Slashdot is unlikely to survive (I know, it is already unlikely to survive much longer but it will happen much quicker without Section 230).
Losing section 230 kills the internet (Score:3, Insightful)
Billionaires have decided they have had enough of capitalism. They have had enough competition they have had enough of paying wages and they are absolutely sick and fucking tired of consumers.
So there is a huge multi-prong push to break down any system of competition and this is part of it. The billionaire owned platforms of course will be able to navigate and survive in a post section 230 world but any potential competitor of course won't.
So say goodbye to competition and alternatives and say hello to a cable TV style system owned by approximately 6 or 7 billionaires.
All of your information will be vetted by them and they're algorithms.
On the other hand for a brief moment you will be able to say the n word on Reddit so I guess the total collapse of our economic and social systems will be worth it...
Re: (Score:2)
And then you look at the real world and see that this is not happening there. Seriously, the US is 5% of the world. The Internet is 100%.
Re: (Score:2)
And then you look at the real world and see that this is not happening there. Seriously, the US is 5% of the world. The Internet is 100%.
But many of the premier social media sites are run by US companies or hosted on infrastructure owned by US companies. What if someone could sue Amazon in a US court and your favorite social media site was shut down because it was hosted on AWS even though it is not a US company?
Re: (Score:2)
You do not understand the situation. These US companies can be sued on other countries as well! Mind-blowing, I know...
Re: (Score:2)
So just like the classified ads that we had back in the day where you paid by the word and then your message went through a moderation process before it was published.
Repealing Section 230 would take us back to quieter times, for better or for worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Silvergun, I think were drunk when you wrote that. But my mother also had a colloidal silver phase. It's always something. The biggest fad she bought into was a Rife machine which is basically just a frequency generator that's supposed to cure anything if you dial in the right frequency.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
USENET predates 230.
Slashdot predates 230.
Hell, back then we also had Kuro5hin and Technocrat.
Post-230, we have X and Facebook trying to out-extreme each other, rampant fraud, corruption on an unimaginable scale, etc etc.
What has 230 ever done for us? (And I'm pretty sure we already had roads and aqueducts...)
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot predates 230.
It most certainly does not. Slashdot arrived in 1997. The law in question is Section 230 of the Telecommunications act of 1996
"Free speech"? (Score:2)
There hasn't been "free speech" on the Internet since the days of LiveJournal and MySpace. Look at what the platforms show you in the name of the almighty algorithm...only rarely is it what the user wants to see. Instead, it's what the "verified" (read: paid serious money to promote their material) accounts have decided you should see, with a sprinkling of the accounts you actually want to see thrown in just to maintain your engagement.
The only exception of which I'm aware is BlueSky, which still, so far, s
Re: (Score:3)
"The platforms" are, at best, a percent of the internet.
Sign up for a linode, put up any sort of website you can imagine on it, and explain why you would choose for the algorithms you write or install, to work the way that you fear.
It doesn't have to be as bad as you say, unless you want it. That's essential freedom.
Algorithmically generated feeds (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Algorithmically generated feeds (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is some middle ground to modify section 230. Abolishing all protections for websites for what their users post will have a terrible chilling affect on online speech.
Indeed. For what it's worth we see the same black-and-white expreme thinking over here in terms of political solutions as well.
If something isn't working perfectly, shred it and take a shit on the shreddings! It's the only way.
I think modifying section 230 to limit protections for large sites for algorithmically generated feeds,
Yeah, exactly!
Sec. 230 provides some marvelous things in it allows people to provide a platform for users, which is good because having them liable for everything users say would make that basically impossible. The problem is the platforms for users have become platforms for the platform owners. It's now being used as an excuse whereby a company is completely protected from its own actions.
there's no safe space without 230 (Score:3)
At every level of speech expression, there's a corporation involved. Nobody exists on the internet without any at some point.
So maybe I leave the 'big' social media and news sites (including youtube) and just host a blog as an ISP on a dedicated domain and VM? Nope, now my hosting provider is liable. So instead I just self-host my publishing on docker containers? Nope, because then my domain name provider and/or dyn-dns could be held liable.
They'll always have some corporation to threaten at some point to take my words off the 'net, by twisting what the word 'publishing' means...and I'm not paying any of these companies enough for them to be willing to defend me.
Yes, that's a slippery slope argument. Of course it is. And we've seen it over and over that conservative overlords will follow the slippery slope. The entire set of ideas in Project 2026 is exactly that - having achieved so much of P2025 they want to slide the slope into the next steps into pure fascism.
Re: (Score:2)
At every level of speech expression, there's a corporation involved. Nobody exists on the internet without any at some point.
While that is true, I come close to being able to express my ideas on the internet without getting permission from a corporation. My web site is on a computer in my home. I depend on my internet service provider, but unless they monitor my web site directly or break TLS 1.3 they don't know what I am saying. I depend on a company to host my A DNS record, but they also host my MX DNS record, which is needed for e-mail. I don't use a content delivery service: when you access my web site the information is
Apparently he only said it ... (Score:2)
Section 230 repealed hands the internet to the CCP (Score:2)
The lawyers will destroy social media platforms without section 230. Chinese platforms will tell lawyers to FO.
Section 230 needs tweaking. Any platform that alters or removes postings that are 1st amendment compliant should be deemed a publisher. Adding context or community notes is not an alteration.
Re:Section 230 repealed hands the internet to the (Score:4, Interesting)
Section 230 needs tweaking. Any platform that alters or removes postings that are 1st amendment compliant should be deemed a publisher. Adding context or community notes is not an alteration.
It is hard to draw this line in a way that does not open the door for the rich and powerful to suppress speech they don't like. If I do line-wrapping on your text, but leave the individual words unchanged, is that an alteration? What if I add a footnote that exposes a lie?
Remember that a rich person does not have to win a lawsuit--he can drag out the proceedings to the point that you are unable to continue defending yourself. Even if you are eventually exonerated, the process is punlshment enough to deter others from doing what you did. Section 230 provides an early out in such cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Section 230 needs tweaking.
Why? You've offered absolutely no evidence to support this assertion.
Any platform that alters or removes postings that are 1st amendment compliant should be deemed a publisher.
You said section 230 needs tweaking, but you then proposed its complete elimination. Reconcile your statements.
Adding context or community notes is not an alteration.
alter: change or cause to change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way. Yes, adding context or community notes is absolutely, positively, literally, and in every other way an alteration. For the purpose of determining whether there has been alteration, it is irrelevant whether the cha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The people who host social media platforms are just as entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of association as you or I are. You are suggesting that a platform that doesn't want to associate with you (or any specific comments / uploads) should not enjoy the same rights as others that would host your comment. This is a legally dubious position that I suspect wouldn't hold up in court. You would have to make *all* platforms liable for user content regardless of whether or not they moderate other unrelated
Better idea (Score:2)
Get rid of the damned DMCA and that section 1201 bullshit. As far as the vile crap on social media sites; If you want to use a social media site then you need to be verified as the person behind the handle. You say say stupid shit, you pay the stupid price.
Re: (Score:2)
Some useful reading (Score:5, Informative)
"Before Advocating To Repeal Section 230, It Helps To First Understand How It Works"
https://www.techdirt.com/2025/... [techdirt.com]
"Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act"
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/... [techdirt.com]
Re:Some useful reading (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting. As a European, mostly non-surprising. We have learned the lesion that letting hate-speech run unchecked is a very bad idea indeed. Yes, there are risks in classifying something as and then punishing hate-speech. The risks of not doing it are greater, as long as you have basic moral principle in place and a working rule-of-law. If you do not have them anymore, it stops mattering because you have bigger problems.
Note that hate-speech does not get suppressed by law. You can still make it, you just may have to face consequences. And yes, it may get removed, but only after the fact. Also note that "censorship", which so many of the less well informed like to claim is suppression of speech, i.e. things get checked _before_ they are published. We do not have that here by law. Some platforms chose to do it though, mainly because of really vile and really disruptive users. Nothing wrong with that, they are protecting their platform against users leaving.
Left or right (Score:2)
Nothing Good Will Come of This (Score:3)
And what happened to American exceptionalism? Do we really want to take the freedoms we enjoy and sell them out just to become more like Canada and Australia?
Apples and oranges (Score:2)
if you're an internet platform you get treated one way; you do the exact same thing and you're a publisher, you get treated a completely different way.
This is a false comparison. ISPs generally don't (get to) pick their customers and don't select, edit, and curate those customers content, publishers do both. Publishers have a direct hand in who and what gets published and when, ISP generally don't. Granted, ISPs could be (more) selective in who they signup, like publishers, but that would be hugely labor-intensive and not cost effective given the scale of ISP customers vs. publishers. Even then ISP wouldn't (generally) get involved in their customer's
My prediction (Score:2)
If the law is repealed...
Some social media companies have money, a lot of money
Money attracts the unethical
Companies will be hit with thousands of lawsuits a day, almost all without merit, but every one must be responded to
Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So "justice" == social media platforms banning (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all to defend Israel from its detractors, per usual
It isn't, although that is obviously part of it. It's not about one issue. It's about every issue. As long as we can share unapproved ideas, we can resist. Taking away our ability to do that on the internet would deprive us of the use of the world's greatest-ever communications tool for resistance, or at the very least severely curtail that use by making it inaccessible to the average person.
Re: (Score:2)
There's some nuisance to be had here. I feel for one companies should be 100% liable for any view they push algorithmically. If you have a reddit up/down system by all means, but if you're Facebook sharing strangers with others then fuck them.
Re:So "justice" == social media platforms banning (Score:5, Insightful)
Section 230 isn't about protecting them for the sake of protecting them, it's about protecting them for the sake of our rights. You might hate feceboot with good reason, but a lot of people have a lot of serious conversations there amidst the stacks of shit.
Every platform has to decide what to show users. Even Bsky has a "Discover" feed which is algorithmically generated.
Re: (Score:2)
Section 230 isn't about protecting them for the sake of protecting them, it's about protecting them for the sake of our rights. You might hate feceboot with good reason, but a lot of people have a lot of serious conversations there amidst the stacks of shit.
Every platform has to decide what to show users. Even Bsky has a "Discover" feed which is algorithmically generated.
You can see all the content of Slashdot *if* you choose to. Just filter at -1.
You cannot do that on Meta or X. And it is difficult to do on Google properties.
Re: (Score:2)
You can see all the content of Slashdot *if* you choose to. Just filter at -1.
Slashdot, Reddit, and other atypical social media sites have their own benefits and pitfalls unique to their particular community and moderation designs. Aspects of Slashdot's specific mod system are beneficial and user-friendly, including the descriptive moderation and ability to assign scores based on it. I give bonuses for flamebait, troll, and offtopic on the assumption that much of that moderation is intentionally abusive, but I also don't want to wade in the muck of every single comment in busy discus
Re:So "justice" == social media platforms banning (Score:5, Insightful)
Should moderators here be liable for posts they upvote if those posts are libelous? Should /. (whoever owns them now) also be subject to being held liable for allowing those upvotes? Should /. be held liable for allowing users to set thresholds for what they see based on the moderator's mods? Liability is far clearer in these cases than in AI driven algorithms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is all to defend Russia from its detractors, per usual
FTFY.
Good luck going after the authors of content rather than the carriers when whole organizations of ransom-ware organizations can hide behind the skirt of Mommy Putin. I'm not against actions against Venezuelan speedboats. But if Trump wants to demonstrate his resolve, sink a few of Russia's shadow oil fleet as payback for shitposting.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What? Sheldon Whitehouse is a democrat, and the bill has bipartisan support. That replacement doesn't make any sense even for the accusations you're throwing at me. Even the TikTok ban was dead in the water before dems picked it up again at the lobby's urging.
On top of that, you want to additionally (and without anyone asking for it) provide justifications for Trump overseeing extrajudicial executions off the coast of other countries, just so that I'd know you're a reactionary. Great. Give me a call when Ru
Re: Senator Whitehouse (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like this legislation any more than anybody else, but...seriously? Attacking a guy over his age?
For what it's worth, I am glad about the fact that the 9th circuit justices, some of whom are much older than 70, upheld the repeal of your precious apple tax. It's a good thing nobody your age is hearing cases like that, lest they might be douchebags like you who want to allow companies like Apple do whatever the fuck they want as at that age, they're less likely to be in bed with apple executives, complete with 12 inch apple logo tramp stamps.
The great thing about section 230, is slashdot doesn't have to censor posts like mine from douchebags your age who love to file SLAPP lawsuits.
Re: (Score:3)
You started off so well and yet devolved right into the same douchbaggery of the OP. Congrats, you're now no better.
You don't know their age, maybe you just did a colossal self own. Rather than grouping people together why not call out stupid individuals for being stupid individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
You started off so well and yet devolved right into the same douchbaggery of the OP.
When have I NOT done that? I'm always willing to get my hands dirty and beat people at their own game.
Congrats, you're now no better.
What on earth would I gain by being better? I don't build egos, I tear them down. I am openly troll. I punch down. When I am gone, they must call me Shaitan.
You don't know their age, maybe you just did a colossal self own.
I don't need to know his age. All I need to know is that he's an evangelical iFan who expressed great anger over Apple being made to switch to usb-c. There you have a nonscientific data point, aka anecdote, that things his age are more likely to be evan
Re:Senator Whitehouse (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, you have nothing. How pathetic. Whether you are for or against, at least you should make an actual effort, not an entirely invalid AdHominem.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the internet still a series of tubes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"The optical fiber elements are typically individually coated with plastic layers and contained in a protective tube suitable for the environment where the cable is used" So considering most of the Internet is optical fiber in a protective tube, that would be yes. Even the copper parts of copper wires are contained in a protective plastic tube. Is that the best way to put it, not really most of us would probably call it a sleeve or casing, but it is a hollow cylinder, in which wires or fibers carrying da
Re:Senator Whitehouse [and Mike Godwin] (Score:2)
Your use of the Subject as part of the possible joke confused me. Godwin is about my age, so Section 230 couldn't be that old...
Having said that, I agree that naive ageism was a weak FP, even if the joke had worked. But seems too much trouble to search the discussion in hopes of something worth reading on Slashdot these years...
Re:Senator Whitehouse (Score:5, Insightful)
Old age is cool. The big problem is that he proves that democrats and republicans are exactly alike. Free speech is bad for the Party. Too bad that this fascist behavior goes unchallenged by anybody of real consequence
The speech is not free if it is selected by algorithms to keep that each particular user based on previous use engaged.
It's manipulated speech designed to provide greater profit to the platform, rather than better info to the user.
Get rid of the algorithms to get truly free speech. Like how it was back in 2007.
Re: (Score:3)
Speech via almost all social media is neither free or accurate.
It is a sewer pipe full of almost every opinion and view curated by algorithms to juice up targeted individual audience members reading only the info-sewage most likely to keep them engaged and whose attention being sold to the real customers of the service via all the collected information on each individuals reactions in previous encounters with that platform.
At least on Slashdot we can see the entire input of comments on any article at anytim