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: 2) by slinches on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:35PM
SoylentNews editors do exercise editorial control of the stories that are posted. Although, the comments are not moderated by the administrators or editors at all. So any of the proposals so far wouldn't really impact this site unless the editors posted the offending material to the front page.
Of course that's all moot, really. If someone with an expensive lawyer wanted to get Soylent shut down (legally justified or not), they could sue and tie things up in the courts, forcing the legal defense costs to be high enough that a subscription drive couldn't raise the funds.