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This discussion has been archived.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: 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?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.