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: 2) by DannyB on Thursday June 18 2020, @07:10PM (2 children)
If a platform has a point of view (whether I like it or not), and if that platform exercised editorial control, they still should enjoy Section 230 protections.
Section 230 protections should simply exist universally. Period.
Whether or not a site has an opinion. Anything else is simply wanting to punish (some) platforms (that you don't like) by using Section 230 as a club by threatening to take that safety away. (But not take it away from the sites you like, oh no!)
Why oh why can people not think about what happens when the other people have power, or when the shoe is on the other foot?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2020, @08:15PM (1 child)
So if I post "I agree with DannyB" and the site edits it to say "I agree with DannyB - <something legitimately libelous>" that sort of editorial control is fine without the site assuming responsibility for the libelous content they edited into the post?
I am not advocating selective enforcement of 230, merely that the site should keep its hand off the user content that its hosting with those protections. It can still remove/flag/block things as long as its done objectively and openly.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday June 19 2020, @01:44PM
If the site adds its own words, then those changes are the responsibility of the site. That seems simple and obvious enough. That has nothing to do with Section 230 which is about protecting sites from the words users write.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.