Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the speak-up-now dept.

The Growing Threat to Free Speech Online:

There are times when vitally important stories lurk behind the headlines. Yes, impeachment is historic and worth significant coverage, but it's not the only important story. The recent threat of war with Iran merited every second of intense world interest. But what if I told you that as we lurch from crisis to crisis there is a slow-building, bipartisan movement to engage in one of most significant acts of censorship in modern American history? What if I told you that our contemporary hostility against Big Tech may cause our nation to blunder into changing the nature of the internet to enhance the power of the elite at the expense of ordinary Americans?

I'm talking about the poorly-thought-out, poorly-understood idea of attempting to deal with widespread discontent with the effects of social media on political and cultural discourse and with the use of social media in bullying and harassment by revoking or fundamentally rewriting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

[...] In 1996, [Congress] passed Section 230. The law did two things. First, it declared that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In plain English, this means that my comments on Twitter or Google or Yelp or the comments section of my favorite website are my comments, and my comments only.

But Section 230 went farther, it also declared that an internet provider can "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" without being held liable for user content. This is what allows virtually all mainstream social media companies to remove obscene or pornographic content. This allows websites to take down racial slurs – all without suddenly also becoming liable for all the rest of their users' speech.

It's difficult to overstate how important this law is for the free speech of ordinary Americans. For 24 years we've taken for granted our ability to post our thoughts and arguments about movies, music, restaurants, religions, and politicians. While different sites have different rules and boundaries, the overall breadth of free speech has been extraordinary.

[...] Large internet companies that possess billions of dollars in resources would be able to implement and enforce strict controls on user speech. Smaller sites simply lack the resources to implement widespread and comprehensive speech controls. Many of them would have no alternative but to shut down user content beyond minimalist input. Once again, the powerful would prevail.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:01PM (23 children)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:01PM (#950648) Journal

    Then establish your own website. Let it sit on the web unindexed. Shout from the public square, "Go to myabsolutelybrilliantthoughtthatissogreatnobodywilllisten.com to hear THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH!!!!!" That way people won't have to go to Fox/The Epoch Times or CNN/MotherJones or WSWS to learn what reality is. (Me, I think The Onion defines reality well enough...)

    Now, if this was about an ISP prohibiting you from hosting whatever, then I'd be interested. But it ain't. (And even then there are limits as circumscribed by law. Yeah, CP does cut it as one example here whether you like it or not.... I don't mind at all (in general) the thought that people are individually held liable for what they personally write and that a platform provider has the right to muzzle it. (Platform as in website owner, not ISP).

    YMMV.

    --
    This sig for rent.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:27PM (22 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:27PM (#950659) Journal

    I don't mind at all (in general) the thought that people are individually held liable for what they personally write and that a platform provider has the right to muzzle it.

    And this is why we have to protect anonymous posting and create a more robust network against interference. You have no right to hold one liable for what they say. You can turn your back and ignore it. You can control the content all you want on your computer and LAN, nowhere else. You DO have the right to sue any audience member for any offensive or illegal reaction they take, if it is a physical reaction, such as assault, or denial of goods and services.

    The client/server model is not suitable for the WAN. It's too easy to control content. We need an ad hoc [mesh?] system that is much more difficult to track and take down. Only bulletproof tech and end this stupid argument. For the time being, it's cat and mouse.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:14PM (7 children)

      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:14PM (#950758) Journal

      Everyplace I know of has defamation laws. People can indeed sue for destruction of reputation. That's the law and it is fine.
      If person X is paying for a space, person X gets to control what is being said there if they want to. Especially when person Y can pay for their own platform and type away and bear the consequences themselves as both speaker and publisher.
      And I think it is fine that person X provides the digital space they can enjoy protection if person Y posts something unlawful or tortious. So long as person Y can be held liable for it.
      And both such cases are fine.

      YMMV.

      However, I also may believe that if an organization wants to allow anonymous commenting then the organization can bear the liability for what is said by having allowed anonymity. I do know that cuts pretty close to the heart here at SN. And there are plenty of other circumstances (the ability to expose human rights violations, for instance) where anonymity is a good and valuable tool... But in news reporting organizations, for example, that organization can be held liable for defamation in a similar manner for publishing demonstrable lies from anonymous sources. The digital space has the protection that the digital space owner may not be held liable - put the blame on the poster. But then the poster can assume responsibility for what he or she writes.

      You have a right to shout in the public square. That does not necessarily mean you have the right to be anonymous while doing so or that your identity should be protected when you make public utterances. The circumstances when that can occur can be constrained by law. That's also different from whether your identity deserves privacy when you are not shouting in the public square.

      --
      This sig for rent.
      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:09PM (2 children)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:09PM (#950781) Journal

        People can indeed sue for destruction of reputation. That's the law and it is fine.

        Argument is pointless. Hopefully there will be tech to circumvent the problem and protect our rights.

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
        • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:29PM (1 child)

          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:29PM (#950889) Journal

          And it is still the law. And you can be held responsible for it. Because the rest of us say you will.

          --
          This sig for rent.
          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:20PM

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:20PM (#950903) Journal

            Well, yeah, popular fascism at work, little I can do about that right now. But it is a work in progress.

            --
            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:06PM (3 children)

        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:06PM (#950811) Journal

        Since people insist on allowing both anonymous and pseudo-anonymous posting because "muh freedom of speech", even though the only countries that don't limit freedom of speech are failed states that no longer have the infrastructure (and there it's warlords with guns to your head who censor everyone around them), here's an idea:

        Two classes of posts -

        1. those made by verified users, that can be modded by the community, and are permanent;

        2. those made by unverified users and anonymous users, that are deleted automatically after x number of hours, along with all replies, and are deleted earlier if their user moderation falls below a certain threshold.

        Two classes of users -

        1. Verified users, who can moderate;

        2. Unverified users, who can't moderate.

        Problematic posts that are racist, etc., are either automatically "taken down" - deleted - after a set period of time if they are from an unknown entity, or if it's a verified user, the user can be held responsible by law enforcement and the courts.

        Anonymous speech is thus given less weight, because if you're not ready to stand by what you said, why should anyone bother to listen, and if someone does, why should it be granted eternal life (or whatever passes for it on the internet).

        Does anyone really give a shit what some anonymous coward says? It's got extra troll-bait and spam anyway. And why should anonymous users get a vote on moderating posts? Or multiple sock-puppet votes? It's the same as showing voter ID to vote anywhere else. You can't vote 10 times with 10 anonymous identities in real life, so why should you be able to do so online?

        An easy way to get rid of sockpuppets and the paid shills with multiple accounts, as well as bring back some sense of responsibility. And those who want to post anonymously still can - they will still be heard, but not for very long in any one post, so what's the problem? If you don't like it, get verified ... you're not the wizard of oz behind a cheap curtain.

        Far easier for the site maintainers as well - if they get a complaint about an anonymous post, they can just say "it will be deleted within x hours, no problem". And if they get a complaint about a verified post, if they feel the complaint is valide, they can deal with the individual, or if they feel the complaint is not valid, say "no problem, get a warrant ..."

        --
        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:03PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:03PM (#950899)

          Wow, what a corporate boot licker. This is such a ridiculous suggestion that I have to ask: Who hurt you so badly that you're actually afraid of anonymous cowards?

          • (Score: 0, Troll) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:07AM

            by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:07AM (#950912) Journal
            I'd reverse the question - is ho hurt you so bad that you're such a precious snowflake that you have to hide behind anonymity even on the Internet? Poor baby, afraid to take responsibility for your own words. Enjoy licking Putin's boots much?
            --
            SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fliptop on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:18PM

          by fliptop (1666) on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:18PM (#951157) Journal

          Does anyone really give a shit what some anonymous coward says?

          Sometimes I do. B/c there are times when someone commenting on a particular story actually works for or with or in close proximity to the principles involved. Their comment may offer insight and knowledge that's valuable when considering all sides of an issue.

          --
          Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
    • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:17PM (13 children)

      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:17PM (#950760) Journal

      I guess one other thing.... This law is not talking about whether the WAN can be censored (AFAICT). Client/server or WAN, I support that one should be allowed access to both publish and read. One can also be held accountable for what one publishes. This is about what protections and rights one has as a publisher. In a day and age where anyone can be. (Although I do understand you disagree with this).

      --
      This sig for rent.
      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:50PM (12 children)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:50PM (#950777) Journal

        Of course I disagree with your stand. It is only valid absent the existence of free will. I am assuming we do have free will, that makes the listener responsible for his reaction, no matter what the claimed motivation might be.

        Only technology can resolve this issue when fascist censorship is so popular. It has to be highly resistant against all interference.

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:09PM (4 children)

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:09PM (#950814) Journal
          If the user is responsible for their reaction, surely the poster is responsible for their words in the first place. Responsibility applies to everyone in a civilized society.
          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:19PM (3 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:19PM (#950819) Journal

            Nope. The listener can turn their back, as most probably would. If one can, they all can. It's all on them.

            --
            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:10PM (2 children)

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:10PM (#950847) Journal

              Maybe I don't want to go out of my way to turn my back on you because I'm heading in a particular direction and you're blocking me.

              And if you continue after I tell you to STFU and leave me alone, there are one of two things that will happen, neither of which you will be happy with. Because either way, you will STFU. I have the right not to be harassed by any joker who won't stop talking when I tell them I'm not interested, whether it's a politician in the store parking lot at the corner, the Jehovah's Witness down the street, the satellite TV salesperson who came to my door, or the pervert who exposed himself to me last February.

              My personal space, my rights. Go get your own personal space instead of interfering with mine.

              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:14PM (1 child)

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:14PM (#950850) Journal

                Uh uh.. blocking is something else entirely. You can stop a person from talking to you, but if you remain within earshot while he's talking to someone else, or even himself, you're out of luck. Your personal space is inside your skin, not everything you can see or hear.

                --
                La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:34PM

                  by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:34PM (#950856) Journal

                  You're wrong from a legal standpoint. If you're talking loud enough that you're bothering the people around you, you WILL be censored. Just try being a loudmouth in a restaurant and see how long you last.

                  Or even in a public place.

                  "Hello, 911? There's a crazy guy screaming to himself that the world is about to end and we're all going to die of coronavirus. I have videos. People are getting pissed off. You might want to arrest him for his own protection."

                  Even the public commons has rules and regulations. Disturbing the peace is a real thing. So is public mischief. This is both.

                  --
                  SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:27PM (6 children)

          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:27PM (#950886) Journal

          And it is no way fascist censorship. We are not talking about what government can or cannot allow you to say.

          Your argument is akin to, "I'm free to swing my fists wherever they want and if they intercept your nose then it's your fault for feeling the pain and/or not getting out of the way."

          And you're right. We are on such diametric poles on this that there will be no agreement. Only presentation of where we differ to let others who read decide.

          But it all comes back to whether or not you think your rights are unlimited. And I think we've been down this road before: I believe rights have limits and responsibilities. You do not. So yeah, there won't be any way to bridge that little gap.

          --
          This sig for rent.
          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:15PM (5 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday January 29 2020, @11:15PM (#950902) Journal

            Some rights do have limits, never said otherwise. And the article is about government censorship, and how it uses the civilian marketplace to enforce it. Anyone that acts as an agent of the government should be under the same constitutional constraints as the government itself. So, it is up to us to demand the same from the ISPs. They are acting under and by the authority of the government. Our failure to overcome this problem necessitates the creation of technology to do it for us, to mechanize the process, like any other machine. We had to invent airplane in order to temporarily free us from the bonds of gravity. Now we need something to free us from the shackles of censorship and all forms of fascism.

            Poetry, baby!

            --
            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
            • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday January 30 2020, @07:54PM (2 children)

              by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday January 30 2020, @07:54PM (#951373) Journal

              Interesting. I disagree, because there is nothing in this law that renders Facebook or Twitter to be an agent of the government. They do not "have authority of" nor do they act for the government. They have laws they must obey and protections they are afforded under the law. That is nowhere near "being" government. If they did they would, for example, be able to do things like arrest copyright violators or append fines directly to your account for violations. (And no, not in favor of that....)

              (It also calls up the argument of whether censorship is limited to government or if it is censorship at all when private entities enforce their own policies, but that's been argued to death).

              I'd also very much doubt that you will ever find a technology which will give the freedom you seek. One can't use technology to fix a problem with human nature. (IMO). And if it could.... then the other side would employ a counter exploit to get their way. Which is scarier. But being wrong about that would also be interesting.

              The other thing... People are free to be fascists, socially or voluntarily. Companies are free to enact certain (but not all) fascist policies. Just as they are free to be Antifa. Or you run the risk of biting your own tail of liberty. I think you confuse social fascism with allowing government to be fascist or take fascist actions, which is something one must indeed guard against, especially when they gain the reins of government leadership.

              --
              This sig for rent.
              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:17PM (1 child)

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday January 30 2020, @10:17PM (#951458) Journal

                If the government tells Facebook to take something down or put something up, and yes, even when answering a warrant. Facebook's action is an act of the government. And, let's not forget all those NSLs that we can only speculate about. Secret letters and secret laws do exist.

                I'd also very much doubt that you will ever find a technology which will give the freedom you seek.

                Maybe yes, maybe no, but it sure can't hurt to keep looking, and to reduce the authorities' advantage as much as possible. So, it's going to be an eternal arms race until people quit stomping on each other. The biggest problem right now is obedience. We are supposed remind the government it is there to serve, not command

                --
                La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday February 03 2020, @05:43PM

                  by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday February 03 2020, @05:43PM (#953193) Journal

                  Secret letters exist. Secret laws.... well, the trouble is that you'd have to find one to know it is there. I'm much more worried about administrative regulations (that carry the force of law). And from your perspective I'd see that as a meaningless distinction.

                  When a business complies with a subpoena or a letter or something else from government it just doesn't make them a government agent, but as I suspected there's no way we can reach agreement on that.

                  But I'll walk back what I said a little: We know that things like end-to-end encryption and drive locking is possible. I still don't believe in a foolproof system that could not be hacked or compromised by technology, although I hear Apple is getting close. ;) Even if one could do so, the powers that be will not allow that to stand. Even if the technology stands there is always the wrench problem [xkcd.com]. Government's most noble purpose is to serve, yes. But to serve whom and why are the million dollar questions. Anyway, thanks for sharing!

                  --
                  This sig for rent.
            • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday February 03 2020, @03:49AM (1 child)

              by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 03 2020, @03:49AM (#953005) Homepage Journal

              Canadian law asserts certain rights, and also recognizes that rights may be in conflict.

              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday February 03 2020, @04:43AM

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday February 03 2020, @04:43AM (#953020) Journal

                My whole point is that any law limiting free speech, no matter what country, has to be rendered moot by any means we can dream up. Since free speech isn't very popular, we are totally dependent on finding/creating a technology that no authority can control or shut down. Untethering from the ISP will go a long way

                --
                La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..