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, @10:41PM (3 children)
He begs the question that the law should be what it is. When people argue "online sites that moderate user provided content are liable for that content" it may not be a technically correct legal argument, but they also typically aren't lawyers. Many likely intended to say "online sites that moderate content should be liable for that content", but pedants and people who want to a conveniently dismiss a challenging argument will point to that article.
Fundamentally, what people seem to have a problem with is this: It's unfair to allow websites to say whatever they want without consequence as long as they can find some end user who will say it for them. The standards of a publisher should be applied when they behave like one, whether it's a paper publication or online.
(Score: 2) by maggotbrain on Thursday July 30 2020, @11:17PM (2 children)
Honestly, I think you are fundamentally misreading the general gist of an informational post that should be used as an informational post and not a legal point. I think that I can safely assume that you are not a lawyer and you have an axe to grind. *shrug* Can't help you buddy. Big fucking WHOOSH.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by slinches on Friday July 31 2020, @03:21PM (1 child)
I didn't miss your point. There are people who are wrong about what section 230 says. That's because section 230 has some counter-intuitive implications. Just saying that people are wrong about it fails to address those issues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2020, @07:33AM
Which is why the first thing recommended by the above linked article is to read the law yourself.
Which should (assuming you're reasonably literate) be no big deal. The issue is that many people just regurgitate whatever bullshit various folks want to spew, despite the fact that it's flat wrong.
See for yourself and make your *own* decision. That's the point.