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 shortscreen on Friday June 19 2020, @04:52AM (5 children)
In general this is a good idea and more people should do this.
But as soon as you buy service from a third party you are restricted by their ToS. So it's gonna be tough to start up that digital goatse museum you always wanted to make.
If you know any service provider whose ToS doesn't prohibit any type of content (other than that which is illegal to begin with) I'd like to hear it.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday June 19 2020, @01:47PM (4 children)
If someone can't find a hosting provider for a site that wants to host content so vile that even internet infrastructure providers won't play ball, then they certainly should not be able to put those vile obscenities on Facebook.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Friday June 19 2020, @04:11PM (2 children)
It's not about "vile obscenities" at all. If it were, there'd be no story here. Further more, trying to pretend that it's only about obscenity is dishonest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19 2020, @05:12PM
???????
U even internet bruh???
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday June 19 2020, @07:13PM
Well, then in that case, my original point stands. It should be no problem to go start up a conservative web site that has it's own TOS and alternate facts.
A web site that doesn't require face masks when you visit.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by DeVilla on Friday June 19 2020, @08:05PM
You realize that in the 80s, the entire LGBTQ movement(s) would have been classified that way, right? Anyone who "played ball" would have also been the target of boycotts and general ostracism.