SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the to-censor-or-not-to-censor,-that-is-the-question dept.
The DOJ is proposing scaling back protections for large social media companies outlined in The 1996 Communications Decency Act. In section 230 of the act it states
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.
This has protected the platforms from liability over user-generated content through the years and enabled the incredible growth of social media. An executive order signed last month directed the FCC to review whether social media companies "actions to remove, edit or supplement users' content" invalidated the protections they enjoyed from liability. It seems we have an answer:
In a press release, the Justice Department said that the past 25 years of technological change "left online platforms unaccountable for a variety of harms flowing from content on their platforms and with virtually unfettered discretion to censor third-party content with little transparency or accountability."
The new rules will be aimed at "incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online," the department said; the revisions will also "promote free and open discourse online," "increase the ability of the government to protect citizens from unlawful conduct," and promote competition among Internet companies.
In announcing the [requested] changes to the 26-year-old rules on Wednesday, Attorney General William Barr said: "When it comes to issues of public safety, the government is the one who must act on behalf of society at large."
"Law enforcement cannot delegate our obligations to protect the safety of the American people purely to the judgment of profit-seeking private firms. We must shape the incentives for companies to create a safer environment, which is what Section 230 was originally intended to do," he said.
The full review of section 230 by the DOJ is available here. Key Takeaways and Recommendations are here.
Also at: Justice Department proposes major overhaul of Sec. 230 protections
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday June 18 2020, @04:40PM (52 children)
I fail to see how these two goals can be anything but 100% mutually exclusive.
--
Government: Designed to provide you with "service" and...
...the Media: Designed to provide you with Vaseline.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @04:46PM (35 children)
Discourse is not illicit content, people should not be penalized for presenting crime statistics but they should for involvement in criminal activity.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:00PM (3 children)
The problem here is that the determination of "criminal activity" is an open door for the authorities in power to shut down anything they don't like.
It's much better to allow all speech at the "it is legal" level, and control it (or not) at the "this is a private venue" level (while hopefully remaining aware that huge market penetration such as Facebook's creates de facto public squares), otherwise you are very likely to end up with repressive government action WRT speech.
You can't protect everyone from encountering information using the law, and in my view, you shouldn't even be trying. Too many very dangerous pitfalls, many of which are regularly encountered and do huge harm.
When an action that breaks the classic libertarian leg or picks the classic libertarian pocket is a crime, that's one thing — but discussing it should never be.
--
Unfortunately there is no lifeguard in the gene pool.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @08:40PM (1 child)
Right but people have been brigaded off of platforms for posting Government statistics and peer reviewed papers which is something few here would support. We have arrived at the concept of "hate facts" while the platforms tie themselves in an ideological knot with politicized Terms of Service that are being weaponized by self-proclaimed "victims" against the entire concept of open public discussion. Those posting facts are having accounts yeeted while people posting open criminal incitement ("Burn it all down") are frequently vindicated of any TOS violations.
In summary; I trust the government to legislate more than I trust the current crop of uneducated, middle management millennial half-wits that run social media "trust and safety teams".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2020, @01:35AM
In summary, I trust more an $ENTITY which, at the moment, serves my interest, no matter how damaging it becomes on long term.
Substitute $ENTITY with 'govt' or 'corporations' and the statement remains valid.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 18 2020, @11:52PM
There are many people who have trouble distinguishing word from deed
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:28PM (29 children)
And of course we all know this is just butthurt Trump trying to stifle discourse such as fact-checking his posts.
Using the power of the federal government to punishorganizations for unflattering commentary is something all Americans should be opposed to.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:41PM (18 children)
Don't think that Biden is any different. He is very crooked, which is why the media loves him (because he will be their puppet), and he absolutely hates anyone that criticizes him. He wants to outlaw all criticisms against him.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday June 18 2020, @06:00PM (11 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @06:37PM (10 children)
Watch any of his encounters when people challenge him. The guy is completely spastic and irrational. This [youtube.com] one is one of the most absurd. Guy questions him on trying to take guns away citing when Biden suggesting [youtube.com] he was going to do exactly that with Beto. Biden claims he's full of shit, gets in his face, and then suggests they go outside presumably to fight, followed by becoming increasingly more coherent. If you want to make Biden chimp out simply say "Hunter Biden + Ukraine" and he turns into a complete idiot.
He makes Trump, who's obv a spaz himself, look like the epitome of grace and composure under fire. *This* is who people want to put into the highest political position in the US. LOL!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @07:03PM (9 children)
It's absurd that our only choices are Trump and Biden yet Germany has Angela Dorothea Merkel who has a Ph.D in Quantum Chemistry. I'm seriously jealous.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 19 2020, @12:34AM (7 children)
One difference between US and Germany: there were no parts of US exposed to USSR influence (like East Germany) and, by consequence, to Russian academism.
What a lost opportunity! (large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2020, @01:56AM (3 children)
Wow you're one dumb motherfucker. Europe basically invented academia. Ever heard of the Greeks and the Romans?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 19 2020, @02:49AM (2 children)
You're so clueless of what implies "Russian academism". Would have it explained to you if you asked instead of being dismissive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2020, @07:12AM (1 child)
Not the AP Twit you were interacting with, but I also thought your joke was kind of off. I get you're trying to joke about the absurd politics of the USSR, which Merkel in some ways seems inspired by, but the reason the joke seems off is because the USSR did actually achieve a remarkable degree of education for their population. To this day Russia remains the most educated country [wikipedia.org] in the world. And while I no of no objective way to measure it I also expect they also maintain the richest 'high brow' art culture - without doubt of ballet.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 19 2020, @10:38AM
Nope. To avoid confusion, I'm going to briefly explain it anyway.
Ok, education was seen by the communists as essential from the start until they fell.
In a system that doesn't allow much control over your own life, one "escape route" was to study as long as possible (all education, including tertiary, was free) then get a position in academia or research - at least you had some control over your research and have lower chances of exclusive political control in your everyday activity. This is the very reason most of those that took this route were in STEM, rather than "humanistics" (sociology, law, literature, history, etc), the later being strongly politicized.
Now, you don't get to study that longs without becoming less and less pragmatic - because the life/economy rarely requires you such a deep/narrow specialization that you really need to acquire over long years. Towards the end of the communist era, there was an inflation of highly trained scientists and engineers, with very little contact with the needs of economy - that's what I called "Russian academism". It was no surprise to me Grigori Perelman managed a demonstration worth of a book in volume and then declined the Fields medal [wikipedia.org] - that's the prototype of Russian academism at its peak, he "escaped" the politics by refusing any value except the value of the intellect required by maths.
The situation was mirrored in the East European countries, East Germany included. If you get an intellectual politician from those countries (as opposed to just an opportunistic/populist one), you can bet s/he'll have a post-graduate degree in something; which is Merkel's case.
---
The only "joke" I made was related with the intellectual quality of the American politicians: it seemed funny to me to think "How the US politics would shape if the number of post-graduates would overflow the needs of society?", e.g. by lowering the economic barrier of entry in higher education USSR-style.
Because, you see, the first USSR leader which graduated an University [wikipedia.org] (and thus originated in intelligetsia [wikipedia.org]), "overthrew" the system from inside - granted, he tried his best to repair it.
But, post-graduate underwater-basket-weaving-studies or not, America is heading in that direction. Enjoy you pink/green/blue dyed hair "intelligentia", call them SJW, they'll outlive you. Maybe they'll manage to dismount the ridiculous social and economic system you build around them (and yourself).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 19 2020, @11:43AM (2 children)
I'll ruin the joke by noting that the US imported Russian academism wholesale after 1990 (for a brief description [wikipedia.org] from Wikipedia).
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 19 2020, @01:20PM (1 child)
You fail of ruining anything.
1. you didn't import them, they left for US in the hope for a better life
2. the academics you "imported"? You put them in janitorial positions (haha-only-serious, the major investments were directed into the dotCom boom/bust, then you had plenty of money for wars in Middle East and you buried the education in the "teach the controversy") [youtube.com]
3. none of the "imported" academics can run for any political positions, so not even of a chance of one snowflake in hell you are gonna get a Russian-academism-educated-PhD as president, the way Germany has.
The joke's still on you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 21 2020, @05:10AM
No difference.
Plenty ended up in academia which is significant given the oversupply of academics in the US.
Sorry that is wrong.
The President is not the only political position in the US. Most of the rest is open to immigrants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2020, @03:18PM
Unfortunately here in the U.S. we elect a bunch of primitive monkeys into office. This includes local governments as well, governments of all levels. When they argue with each other I might as well be listening to monkeys making their monkey noises at each other and getting into monkey arguments because so much of what they say is either incoherent, nonsensical if it's coherent enough to understand, or both (I imagine most of the incoherent stuff they say would be nonsensical if it were coherent but I can't really tell).
As someone pointed out, for some reason we can't seem to elect intellects. Instead we elect populists. Elections are a shallow popularity contest where the voting population and the media are a bunch of shallow highschoolers. And the candidates are a bunch of primitive monkeys.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @06:10PM
OK Comrade
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 18 2020, @06:12PM (3 children)
Yep, remember all those times he's said he wants to throw journalists in jail? [thedailybeast.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 18 2020, @06:30PM
How about all those books he made the DOJ censor?
DOJ tries to block Bolton book by seeking injunction, temporary restraining order [foxnews.com]
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 18 2020, @10:57PM
According to the current Attorney General the president is above the law, so presumably if he wants to imprison journalists, then he can.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 19 2020, @12:38AM
Way to go, mate.
Citing from a place that self-declared its reason for existence to peddle the sensational garbage.
Pass me the salt, please.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @06:41PM
Really? Can you document the claims that "he media loves [Biden] (because he will be their puppet), and he absolutely hates anyone that criticizes him." and "[Biden] wants to outlaw all criticisms against him."?
I'm emphatically *not* saying you're a liar, but you've made specific claims, but did not provide any evidence to support them.
If you believe the above to be true, please explain the *factual* basis for your beliefs.
Pretty please. With sugar on top.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @06:11PM (9 children)
This would only be a reasonable position if the media and sites were just as quick to try to "fact-check", for instance, Biden. Instead we have sites go from "trust and believe [women]" to "It's okay to elect a rapist who is very likely entering into mid/late stage dementia/Alzheimer's because he's down with the DNC!" Being overtly partisan and then begging the other side to support you when there is push-back against such behavior is a somewhat ill conceived strategy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 18 2020, @06:37PM (4 children)
Hey look, some slander.
If they repeal sec. 230 Soylent News could get sued for that post.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @06:54PM (3 children)
Anyone with enough Benjamins can sue Soylent News.
Biden is one of the most public of figures, so he would find it difficult to win. Also, the post is true.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 18 2020, @07:28PM (2 children)
Not for comments posted by users they can't.
Unless 230 is repealed, of course...
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @07:49PM (1 child)
They can, it's just unlikely to be successful.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @08:55PM
What AC is pointing out is a fact of life. Consider: what do you have to do when you drive up to a stop sign?
(Score: 5, Touché) by SpockLogic on Thursday June 18 2020, @07:53PM (3 children)
You are talking about Trump who has actually been accused of RAPE, aren't you? As he is currently being sued by his victim for lying about it.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 18 2020, @11:02PM
It's just the standard conservative projection.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2020, @06:11AM (1 child)
Therer's a difference between vacuous accusations, which are a dime a dozen in today's political atmosphere, and actual events. At this point few people who've assessed the evidence doubt that Biden raped his accuser. Even the New York Times was running articles literally stating "I Believe [Biden's victim]. I’m Voting for Him Anyway." The DNC, and their media outlets, are unabashedly endorsing a literal rapist which I think emphasizes the modern Machiavellian nature of the organization, which is probably why they've become so screwed up and devoid of real ethics.
One thing I'd also emphasize is that what Biden did is being framed by the liberal media as sexual assault. That is literally fake. Rape is defined as "“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." And that is exactly what Biden did. Sexual assault is grabbing somebody's ass or tits. Biden is a rapist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 20 2020, @09:18PM
I guess Biden was too good of a student of the master when it came to grabbing 'em by the pussy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @07:25PM
Illegal racist discourse!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @04:53PM (11 children)
At face-value, yes, you can't have both and it is poorly written. I think the idea it is *trying* to communicate is "illegal content should be taken down or walls put up to guard access, and at the same time, platforms shouldn't moderate/punish views the platform doesn't agree with."
I would hope that if it is *specifically* outlined in the ToS/Usage agreement on the website, then they could moderate that.
For example:
Allowed: Facebook specifically stating in the ToS that they can moderate or remove conservative posts.
Not allowed: Facebook stating they are a platform to post stuff and then they moderate or remove conservative posts.
Also not allowed: Sexually unguarded explicit content because easy access for minors. No need to state in the ToS or anything. Facebook can take action immediately.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:16PM (5 children)
From Facebook's TOS:
...at that age, this should definitely be an issue for parents to act as the gatekeepers, or not, as they see fit — not the government. IMO, Facebook is far too much of a de facto public venue for them to be doing any censoring at all, but that's a separate issue.
And as for your specific construction, "minor" has a legal meaning when you use it that way, and in the US, that is any person under the age of majority, which is usually about 18 or so. The idea that one must not risk a 17-year old encountering sexual material... that's outright ludicrous.
--
Entropy is a bitch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:39PM
Facebook public profiles are unwalled.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:43PM (3 children)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minor [cornell.edu]
All states define an "age of majority", usually 18. Persons younger than this age are considered minors, and must be under the care of a parent or guardian unless they are emancipated. Minors are treated differently from adults for many legal purposes including privacy of official records, punishment in criminal matters, or the ownership or transfer of property.
"The idea that one must not risk a 17-year old encountering sexual material... that's outright ludicrous." Too bad. That's the law of the land. Don't like it? Petition to change it. But whatever age you figure out is going to be black and white under the eyes of the law.
Also, you forgot that you can't buy cigarrettes the day before you are legally allowed to. I reckon that's even more outright ludicrous to you. But again, under the law, it's black and white.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:57PM (2 children)
Large websites with adult content should be 18+ in terms of service, but Democrats are desperate for more votes and are trying to catch them young.
Stick it to the bastards. I've said over and over again that the best way to stick it to them would be to halt and rescind the H1-B program, which will do 2 things: Get more Americans hired, and get more political diversity into these big corporations who are run by and who prefer prefer rootless foreigners with no loyalty to the U.S.
That plus removing all their liability protection would be hilarious to see and I hope to see at least the latter before November.
What would be even better, though, is if Facebook went quite the other way and stopped the censorship altogether as a method to beat the sanctions (only censoring the most blatantly illegal content). Then the public would get a much better idea of what people really think. But something better happen fast, I don't believe the polls about Trump now but he may actually be in trouble if he doesn't do something big like Halt the H1-Bs and/or BTFO Big Tech.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @06:28PM
Ok pedowhinge
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 18 2020, @11:06PM
Now tell us all about the Jews and the Mexicans again.
I for one hope Trump starts taking your campaign advice.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:22PM (4 children)
That won't be how it works. Let's lay this out in some sort of logical order:
1) This problem of sites increasingly turning into para-governmental political propaganda machines is very much a problem. They are likely playing a major role in the dramatic divides that have appeared in society. This results in an unstable population and ultimately an unstable country. They've no doubt also contributed to countless acts of political violence from people, on either side, who think they're acting against the ultimate evil when instead they're just generally attacking people who have different opinions.
2) Allowing such things into the T&C wouldn't solve the problem. Nobody reads T&C and even when informed most people don't really care because they never think 'x' will happen to them.
3) Sites are going to remain dependent on section 230, or whatever it's successor will be. If not for section 230 then you (site owner) would be responsible for whatever is posted on your site. If somebody publishes things that subject to legal charges of defamation or libel against John Doe then you, the person who published it, could be sued. Without 230 any sort of social content at scale is basically impossible. So it's not like the sites can just say 'fine, take your 230 and shove it.' They're going to take it, whatever 'it' may be.
---
Only issue is one of influence. Google, Facebook, etc have an absurd amount of influence in DC, among our intelligence agencies, and so on. Same reason anti-trust law no longer exists when it comes to these sort of companies. So I'd be *extremely* surprised to see anything like this ever come even remotely close to passing.
(Score: 2, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:41PM (3 children)
Yep, and since everyone here is so in favor of repealing 230 I'll go ahead and post a bunch of copyrighted material to SN the day it's repealed just to get the site sued.
You're all in favor of that, right?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @06:40PM
Yes, that is a fair and accurate representation of what I suggested.
Seriously man, the partisan rambling has seriously melted whatever brain you once had.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @09:12PM
You can clarify that exercising editorial control eliminated the sec 230 protection. You can be a common carrier, or you can be edited. That's how it was understood to begin with until some got so big that enforcement was political as Google/FB/Twitter is assisted in getting their very own politicians elected and now are owed favors. They want it as is as any up and coming competitors would have to also violate 230 but without the political protection.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2020, @01:43AM
The funny thing is that most people don't know or weren't paying attention to how things were pre-Section 230. We'll just have to wait for the lawsuits to start springing up a la Prodigy or the takedown notices to spring up.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @04:59PM
Illicit means removing illegal content, not "I think destroying statues is regressive." type content.
Hollywood and the recording industry seem to have a crazy strong lobby in DC so this is probably a politician who actually wants to get something positive passed doing some politicking. We get platforms that stop devolving into political propaganda machines, and they get the ability to hold sites responsible for copyright infringement more easily.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:04PM
Sure it can. If you put all of that illicit content behind paywalls and heinous DRM schemes, people will start choosing the still-free open discourse, because it's easier.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:21PM
Ignoring cognitive dissonance is a state of being in Government.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @08:11PM
It allows for both this way: Under the new law there would be two choices: Companies can stop censoring posts for anything other than illegal content; or they can keep censoring posts to appease advertisers, but are now libel for user content. I'm hoping for the former, but I'm sure we will see both.