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: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:27PM (4 children)
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)
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)
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
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
Again, see my previous post.
"You're not being arrested. It's simply the removal of your being able to go home."