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: 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.