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, @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..