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 looorg on Thursday June 18 2020, @05:20PM
While similar I'm not sure it's the same thing here. It speaks more to the matter how powerful Google, or others -- after all they are not the only one that does this, is or have become -- they de facto are the internet as far as, probably, large amounts of people think.
I don't think this is about removing "illegal" content, even tho sometimes I'm left to wonder, but more about that they are both trying to push agendas but at the same time doesn't want to have the responsibilities of say what a newspaper have. There is someone there responsible for the content they put out while Google, and others, have shifted that entire responsibility onto the user while they so to speak take zero risks but all the rewards themselves. So they want all the protections afforded to other publishers but they want non of the responsibilities that comes along with it.
The Internet monopoly of say Google, Facebook and a few other companies are a related matter but I'm not sure it's the matter at hand. But it's troublesome that so much power has been handed to a very few. That then can, have and will use that power to suit their needs.