Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the change-is-in-the-wind dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:14PM (22 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:14PM (#1028680)

    The proposed law would prohibit platforms from expressing a "discernable viewpoint" on their own platforms. It's no different from regulating what a newspaper decides to publish in its editorial section.

    There's no chance this holds up in court.

    Twitter, etc. "feel like" they ought to be common carriers, but they aren't. They don't have to be viewpoint neutral and they aren't really even supposed to be.

    As bad as the current situation is, all of the alternatives are worse.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:34PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:34PM (#1028698)

    The proposed law would prohibit platforms from expressing a "discernable viewpoint" on their own platforms. It's no different from regulating what a newspaper decides to publish in its editorial section.

    Are YOU dumb, or hope all of US are?
    Show us the language that forbids anycorp from saying whatever they wish in its editorial section, will you?
    It is arranging the OTHERS' words to their agenda, that they need be banned from.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:38PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:38PM (#1028704)

      Turns out it's just you. I wasn't hoping for that, but you really came through.

      Newspapers publish content *written by others* in their editorial section. This is exactly the same as regulating what they choose to publish.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:57PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:57PM (#1028722)

        And all newspapers I've ever studied about state they have an express right to edit your words for space constraints or any other reason, too. It's happened to me when I've written letters to an editor that they get reworked a little, although they still preserved my position and my argument. This shoots down the notion that editorial control somehow changes what you wrote.

        • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:59PM

          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:59PM (#1028725) Journal

          Editorial control changing what you wrote somehow affects that it's still a user-submitted editorial, I meant - it is, even if it is edited. Then again, newspapers also require the writer to identify themselves sufficiently that you can be held liable for the content you wrote.

          --
          This sig for rent.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:51PM (6 children)

    As bad as the current situation is, all of the alternatives are worse.

    Nah, only most of them. Just like speech, the answer to bad platforms is more platforms. Otherwise I agree.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Booga1 on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:04PM (5 children)

      by Booga1 (6333) on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:04PM (#1028813)

      Just like speech, the answer to bad platforms is more platforms.

      On this I agree. Services ranging from web hosts like Geocities, instant messaging like AIM, social media like MySpace, and many others have come and gone in popularity. Some are completely gone and never replaced.
      If you don't like what the site or service you're using is doing, quit using it. People complain about new services popping up to serve a specific demographic, but that's exactly what should be happening when the one they're on turns into crap.

      That's why this site exists and we're all here!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:23PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:23PM (#1028822)

        If you don't like what the site or service you're using is doing, quit using it.

        "A good site you have here. Shame if something bad were to happen to it."
        If you-know-who don't like what the site or service you're using is doing, they harass the workers, the owners, the hosters, the providers, the payment processors, till it quits being usable to you. Using the mafia's workbook to great effect.
        That sort of action need be handled as the criminal conspiracy it is. Otherwise, your arriving in a "reeducation camp" is only a matter of time.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Booga1 on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:33PM (3 children)

          by Booga1 (6333) on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:33PM (#1028826)

          Your comment is about the explosive growth of "cancel culture" assholes that can't just control their own behavior, they have to control everyone else's. For them, it is not enough to avoid a service, product, or person. They harass and bully everyone they even perceive as remotely connected to whatever their latest target of hate is.

          People have lost sight of the peace that comes from minding your own business and now they won't let anyone else live in peace either. They're not even happy if you're neutral on a subject. If you're not just as pissed about something as they are, well they'll try to "cancel" you too. It's toxic and they hide their cancerous attitude by claiming it's the other side that's toxic. It's a great example of projection run amok.

          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:10PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:10PM (#1028875)

            In the past, most countries did not call their bandits a "culture" and let them go their merry way. Russia did, and ended up ruled by them. Let that be a lesson to be learned, not an example to be followed.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:19PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:19PM (#1028884)

              Not sure if you've noticed, but that ship sailed in the US long before Trump got elected. Pork barrel projects, bill riders and earmarks, bailouts for the "too big to fail" companies, and so on. Kinda getting off topic though.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:26PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:26PM (#1028887)

                I wish you to never learn firsthand the difference between tame corruptioners and actual genuine bandits.

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:59PM (2 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday July 30 2020, @03:59PM (#1028726) Journal

    There's no chance this holds up in court.

    True, but sites like Soylent can't afford to go to court. The minute some AC posts something slanderous or copyrighted and SN is gone. Twitter, on the other hand, has an army of lawyers to keep them in court until the heat death of the universe.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday July 30 2020, @11:24PM

      Under the proposed legislation, yeah. Under the current state of affairs we could probably get a lawyer to do it on contingency because of the likelihood of us getting awarded legal expenses in the countersuit.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @11:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @11:26PM (#1028980)

      The lawyers will probably survive even that, just to spite everything else.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @05:54PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @05:54PM (#1028809)

    newspapers have discernable viewpoints, *especially* in their editorial sections.

  • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:51PM (6 children)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday July 30 2020, @06:51PM (#1028835) Journal

    There's no chance this holds up in court.

    LOL -- S230 didn't codify a law of the universe and removing an opt-in immunity clause is not something that these companies would be able to somehow magically will into being. All the law does is give privileges to certain companies by protecting them the expense of defamation litigation if they aren't exercising editorial control. The companies want to edit, immunity goes *poof* and the status quo is reinstated. Now, they might win all the defamation suits individually, but the process is the punishment because its so darn expensive.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:12PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:12PM (#1028877)

      Review the link to Mike Masnick's blog below, where he touches on this.

      While Congress could have left Internet publishers alone and never created Section 230, they didn't. Just because Section 230 did not always exist does not mean that changes to it are exempt from First Amendment scrutiny. Congress could even repeal it in its entirety. But they cannot pass a law that punishes companies for their editorial decisions - even if the punishment is simply in the form of revoking protections they would have otherwise had.

      Suppose Congress passes a tax cut, but then they come along and say "except you have to pay the original higher rate if you say something we don't like." They didn't have to pass that tax cut. But given that they did, they can't gate it behind speech restrictions.

      • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:27PM (4 children)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:27PM (#1028889) Journal

        Revoking S230 is not an impingement in speech. It is simply the removal of a block against the consequences of speech.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:56PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:56PM (#1028910)

          Again, for all you idiots, removing 230 will result in many users being outright banned and INCREASED censorship as corporations install filters toprevent being liable for anything.

          I am floored that you are being hoodwinked like this. Soon they'll wring their hands and say sooorrry you got deplatformed but we don't wanna be sued. I don't know if this is intentional manipulation or just collectuvely stupid outrage, but the end result of repealing 230 will be more corporate control over speech on their platforms.

          It will not work out how you hope.

          • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 30 2020, @11:42PM (1 child)

            by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday July 30 2020, @11:42PM (#1029003) Journal

            So once twitter and facebook kill themselves with these filters, people will disperse into the smaller corners of the internet and life will get better. The power and influence concentrated in Google, FB, and Twitter is exceptionally dangerous and anything that kills them is good. If there are collateral effects, we can deal with those later.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @01:33AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @01:33AM (#1029047)

              Way to completely miss the point.

              Decentralized services are great and all, but what would actually happen is that twitter/fb and any decentralized server nodes would start locking down and banning users. That already happens with decentralized servers, admins have to be cautious of who they allow into their "network" or risk being banned from the larger node that do not tolerate certain subjects.

              The dream you have will fall to pieces in reality as paranoia of lawsuits increases. So you'll be forced into even more controlled walled gardens then now, or live in the fringes publishing your own content as you are able to right now. There is really no upside except some self-righteous sense of retribution against the tech industry.

              I'm starting to wonder if these attacks on 230 aren't a sly attempt to enact even stricter controls while allowing corporations to shrug their shoulders and say their hands are tied. Right now they don't have that excuse, their actions sit on their own shoulders.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:56PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:56PM (#1028929)

          Again, see my previous post.

          "You're not being arrested. It's simply the removal of your being able to go home."