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 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.