Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday June 18 2020, @04:13PM   Printer-friendly
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


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This discussion has been archived.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: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @04:53PM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @04:53PM (#1009575)

    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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Underrated=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:16PM (5 children)

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:16PM (#1009590) Journal

    Also not allowed: Sexually unguarded explicit content because easy access for minors.

    From Facebook's TOS:

    We try to make Facebook broadly available to everyone, but you cannot use Facebook if:

    You are under 13 years old.

    ...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

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:39PM (#1009606)

      Facebook public profiles are unwalled.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:43PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:43PM (#1009614)

      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)

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:57PM (#1009620) Homepage

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @06:28PM (#1009640)

          Ok pedowhinge

        • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 18 2020, @11:06PM

          by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday June 18 2020, @11:06PM (#1009793)

          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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:22PM (#1009596)

    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)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:41PM (#1009607) Journal

      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.

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @06:40PM (#1009647)

        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

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @09:12PM (#1009732)

        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

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2020, @01:43AM (#1009847)

        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.