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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:20PM (4 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:20PM (#1009591) Journal

    If they have started to moderate content, censor something -- promoting other things, then they are a publisher and should have publisher rights and responsibilities.

    Soylent News censors aristarchus articles and promotes DeathMonkey articles. Should they be legally responsible when some AC posts something illegal?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:28PM (1 child)

    by looorg (578) on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:28PM (#1009600)

    I think that has more to do with the content then anything else. If I wanted to read all of Aristarchus nazi-fantasies then I would, and I do admit that I usually read some of them and other content in the sub-queue even (or before) it gets rejected and not make it to the front page.

    Should SN be responsible if some AC post something illegal? Are they not already? If some AC here would start to post illegal things I'm fairly sure they have a responsibility to remove it. They might not have a lot of information to go on if say some law enforcement agency came knocking -- or just how anonymous is anonymous really? Say if someone would start to link in (or post images -- if that becomes a thing) of child pornography or if they start to post death threats to the President. I guess that sooner or later they would then get a call or a knock on the door from say the Secret Service or similar. So I guess they have some responsibility by offering up the ability for people to post things, perhaps even beyond what would be considered normal human decency.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:31PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:31PM (#1009602)

    Yes. But there's one word missing from the USian sense of justice: "proportionality".

    • (Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:43PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:43PM (#1009612) Journal

      Is that where you think different standards should apply to websites whose editorial choices you agree with?