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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.