SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the what-were-you-saying-about-Free-Speech? dept.
It would give these bureaucratic government agencies unprecedented control over how Internet platforms moderate speech by allowing them to revoke the essential protections Congress laid out in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). CDA 230 is the basic law that makes it possible for online platforms to let users post our own content, and to make basic decisions about what types of content they as private entities want to host. Every meme, every social media post, every blog and user-created video on the Internet has been made possible by this crucial free speech protection.
In practice, this executive order would mean that whichever political party is in power could dictate what speech is allowed on the Internet. If the government doesn't like the way a private company is moderating content, they can shut their entire website down.
From https://www.salon.com/2019/08/12/leaked-draft-of-trump-executive-order-deemed-unconstitutional_partner/ we get the following:
According to CNN, which obtained a copy of the draft, the new rule "calls for the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms. Although still in its early stages and subject to change, the Trump administration's draft order also calls for the Federal Trade Commission to take those new policies into account when it investigates or files lawsuits against misbehaving companies."
While Politico was the first to report how the draft was being circulated by the White House, CNN notes that if put into effect, "the order would reflect a significant escalation by President Trump in his frequent attacks against social media companies over an alleged but unproven systemic bias against conservatives by technology platforms. And it could lead to a significant reinterpretation of a law that, its authors have insisted, was meant to give tech companies broad freedom to handle content as they see fit."
"[...] It's hard to put into words how mind bogglingly absurd this executive order is," said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, in a tweet. "In the name of defending free speech it would allow mass government censorship of online content. In practice, it means whichever party is in power can decide what speech is allowed on the internet."
This authoritarian legislation is being pushed by claiming it will do the opposite of censorship by giving the federal government even more broad power. Reminds me of the following quote, "I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."
See also:
- https://www.rawstory.com/2019/08/leaked-draft-of-trump-executive-order-to-censor-the-internet-denounced-as-dangerous-unconstitutional-edict/
- https://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2019/08/13/the-trump-administration-drafted-an-executive-order-to-censor-the-internet/
- http://dctribune.org/trumps-executive-order-to-censor-the-internet-leaked-could-allow-mass-government-censorship/
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20669477
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 14 2019, @09:58PM (4 children)
I see you don't accept "public accommodations". Are you sure that your stance is consistent? Because I doubt it.
That said, if a site engages in editing posted content, I don't believe it can claim to act as a common carrier...or it certainly *shouldn't* be allowed to make that claim.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 15 2019, @07:00PM (3 children)
47 U.S. Code § 230(c)(2):
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday August 15 2019, @11:53PM (2 children)
Which :
1. Does not protect them for NOT removing objectionable / libelous material, and
2. Applies to an interactive service, and says nothing about common carrier status.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 16 2019, @04:12AM (1 child)
The claim was:
But 47 U.S. Code § 230(c)(2) points out that they can remove things because they are included in the definition in 47 U.S. Code § 230(f)(2).
And because I know people are too lazy to look it up, here is 47 U.S. Code § 153(24).
The law is there, but y'all rather bitch about what you think the law is, without actually looking it up. I mean 47 USC § 230 is in Tile 47: TELECOMMUNICATIONS, Chapter 5: WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION, Subchapter II: COMMON CARRIERS Part I: Common Carrier Regulation. It literally takes half a heartbeat of thought to realize that something in the Common Carrier Regulations part of the U.S. Code might have something to do with the regulation of Common Carriers.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday August 16 2019, @08:07AM
Which pretty clearly differentiates an 'information service' who may edit content and should be classed as a publisher, from a 'telecommunications system' which is clearly a common carrier and should not edit content.
The original claim was that Facebook, Google, Twitter etc. are trying to claim the rights and privileges of both while disclaiming any obligations of either by claiming to be the other.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.