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: 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.