SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Democrats want a truce with Section 230 supporters:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says apps and websites aren't legally liable for third-party content, has inspired a lot of overheated rhetoric in Congress. Republicans like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) have successfully framed the rule as a "gift to Big Tech" that enables social media censorship. While Democrats have very different critiques, some have embraced a similar fire-and-brimstone tone with the bipartisan EARN IT Act. But a Senate subcommittee tried to reset that narrative today with a hearing for the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency (PACT) Act, a similarly bipartisan attempt at a more nuanced Section 230 amendment. While the hearing didn't address all of the PACT Act's very real flaws, it presented the bill as an option for Section 230 defenders who still want a say in potential reforms.
[...] Still, Section 230 has been at the forefront of US politics for years, and some kind of change looks increasingly likely. If that's true, then particularly after today's hearing, a revised version of the PACT Act looks like the clearest existing option to preserve important parts of the law without dismissing calls for reform. And hashing out those specifics may prove more important than focusing on the policy's most hyperbolic critics.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Dale on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:23PM (4 children)
I have zero faith in any faction of Congress to be able to make adjustments to this without screwing it up or completely destroying it. It may not be perfect and it may leave some interpretation, but if they touch it and make changes it will only get worse.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:34PM (1 child)
Yeah, but do you trust the executive to interpret the current law fairly?
Or do you the courts to establish precedent that makes any sense about it?
If we only had one dysfunctional to the point of dystopian branch of government it'd be a lot easier to back this kind of complaint.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:47PM
Leave it up to whoever owns the platform. Better for people to not rely on centralized services and develop interoperable protocols so users can share without giving up ownership or control of their data.
Seriously, there is zero need to use fb/twitter/whatever. No one is guaranteed a platform, that is some next level bullshit from the alt-right and anti-censorship crowd which totally ignores the rights of the people who own the platform.
If any law should be passed it should only be anti-discrimination laws. Tough sell to protect political ideology without turning the net into a rat infested shit hole. Reminder, even SN bans specific speech so don't get too absolutist with the freedom of speech.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday July 30 2020, @05:07PM
There is nothing to "adjust". There is no right to regulate or sanction content on the internet, but technically it is far too easy to regulate.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday July 31 2020, @06:47AM
I have zero faith on congresses, governments and corporations to enable a simple law:
If you host third parties' content you MUST help identify who breaks the law AND remove material which breaks the law PER REQUEST of the law (sentence or police in case of emergency. Not your fault if sentences take long.)
If you start editing third parties' content outside of this, you become corresponsible of everything you edit and everything you don't edit: you censor political post and you leave pedophile content? OK, now you're in trouble. You censor fake news and leave other fake news up? You're in trouble. You censor christians and leave islam? seriously?
Trouble deserved when you advertised your private servers as a platform for everybody, trouble undeserved in very few cases.
Account abandoned.