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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Interesting) by slinches on Friday July 31 2020, @03:21PM (1 child)

    by slinches (5049) on Friday July 31 2020, @03:21PM (#1029323)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2020, @07:33AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2020, @07:33AM (#1031160)

    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.