US Senate to issue subpoenas for Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Sundar Pichai:
The US Senate's Commerce committee on Thursday voted unanimously on a bipartisan basis to issue subpoenas to Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Google's Sundar Pichai, as Congress considers changes to liability protections granted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The three tech CEOs would appear before the committee as witnesses, but the date of the hearing hasn't been determined.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, from Washington and the leading Democrat on the committee, initially opposed the subpoena, which had been introduced by Chairman Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi. But Cantwell changed her position after Republicans included language in the subpoena regarding privacy and "media domination."
"There is a lot we want to talk to tech platforms about, like privacy and anti-competitive media practices," she said in a statement. "I thank the Chairman for broadening the subpoena to cover these issues."
She went on to say that "Section 230 deserves a serious thoughtful discussion. But the hearing should not be used to try to have a chilling effect on social media platforms who are taking down false COVID information or hate speech."
Previously:
DOJ Unveils Trump Administration's Legislation to Reform Tech's Legal Liability Shield
Democrats Want a Truce With Section 230 Supporters
US Senate Panel OK's EARN IT Act
DOJ Proposes Rolling Back Protections for Tech Platforms Acting like Publishers
U.S. EARN IT Act Could Discourage Adoption of End-to-End Encryption
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - 20 Years of Protecting Intermediaries
Related Stories
The Recorder reports on efforts to weaken Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act:
[...] §230 has proven to be one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet. In the past two decades, we've (EFF) filed well over 20 legal briefs in support of §230, probably more than on any other issue, in response to attempts to undermine or sneak around the statute. Thankfully, most of these attempts were unsuccessful.
[...] The first wave of attacks on §230's protections came from plaintiffs who tried to plead around §230 in an attempt to force intermediaries to take down online speech they didn't like.
[...] The second wave of attacks came from plaintiffs trying to deny §230 protection to ordinary users who reposted content authored by others
[...] Another wave of attacks, also in the mid-2000s, came as plaintiffs tried to use the Fair Housing Act to hold intermediaries responsible when users posted housing advertisements that violated the law.
[...] We are now squarely in the middle of a fourth wave of attack—efforts to hold intermediaries responsible for extremist or illegal online content. The goal, again, seems to be forcing intermediaries to actively screen users and censor speech. Many of these efforts are motivated by noble intentions, and the speech at issue is often horrible, but these efforts also risk devastating the Internet as we know it.
Proposed US law is "Trojan horse" to stop online encryption, critics say:
Two Republicans and two Democrats in the US Senate have proposed a law that aims to combat sexual exploitation of children online, but critics of the bill call it a "Trojan horse" that could harm Americans' security by reducing access to encryption. The EARN IT (Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies) Act "would create incentives for companies to 'earn' liability protection for violations of laws related to online child sexual abuse material," an announcement by the bill's supporters said today.
Under current law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides website operators broad legal immunity for hosting third-party content. A 2018 law known as FOSTA-SESTA chipped away at that immunity for content related to prostitution and sex trafficking, and the EARN IT Act would further weaken immunity for website operators who fail to take certain to-be-determined measures to find and remove child sexual-abuse material.
In a related development today, US Attorney General William Barr gave a speech calling for an analysis of how Section 230 affects "incentives for platforms to address [child sexual exploitation] crimes and the availability of civil remedies to the victims."
[...] Stewart Baker, who was formerly assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security and general counsel at the National Security Agency, wrote in a blog post that "there is nothing radical" about the bill. "The risk of liability isn't likely to kill encryption or end Internet security," Baker wrote. But Baker acknowledged that the bill will likely make the decision to offer encryption a more difficult one for tech companies
Related:
U.S. Congress Passes SESTA/FOSTA Law
DoJ Lets Cops Know SESTA/FOSTA Is For Shutting Down Websites, Not Busting Sex Traffickers
Crypto Wars: US AG William Barr and UK Home Secretary Priti Patel Shake Fists at Facebook
Senate Judiciary Committee Interrogates Apple, Facebook about Crypto
The DOJ is proposing scaling back protections for large social media companies outlined in The 1996 Communications Decency Act. In section 230 of the act it states
no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
This has protected the platforms from liability over user-generated content through the years and enabled the incredible growth of social media. An executive order signed last month directed the FCC to review whether social media companies "actions to remove, edit or supplement users' content" invalidated the protections they enjoyed from liability. It seems we have an answer:
In a press release, the Justice Department said that the past 25 years of technological change "left online platforms unaccountable for a variety of harms flowing from content on their platforms and with virtually unfettered discretion to censor third-party content with little transparency or accountability."
The new rules will be aimed at "incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online," the department said; the revisions will also "promote free and open discourse online," "increase the ability of the government to protect citizens from unlawful conduct," and promote competition among Internet companies.
In announcing the [requested] changes to the 26-year-old rules on Wednesday, Attorney General William Barr said: "When it comes to issues of public safety, the government is the one who must act on behalf of society at large."
"Law enforcement cannot delegate our obligations to protect the safety of the American people purely to the judgment of profit-seeking private firms. We must shape the incentives for companies to create a safer environment, which is what Section 230 was originally intended to do," he said.
The full review of section 230 by the DOJ is available here. Key Takeaways and Recommendations are here.
Also at: Justice Department proposes major overhaul of Sec. 230 protections
An amended version of America's controversial proposed EARN IT Act has been unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee – a key step in its journey to becoming law. This follows a series of changes and compromises that appear to address critics' greatest concerns while introducing fresh problems.
The draft legislation [PDF] is nominally supposed to help rid the web of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) by altering Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which strongly shields websites and apps, like Facebook and Twitter, from liability regardless of whatever their users share on those platforms, plus or minus some caveats. The proposed law rather ignored the fact that Section 230 already doesn't protect internet giants if their netizens upload illegal content, though.
Initial drafts of the law also contained two proposals that raised serious concerns from a broad range of groups and organizations. Firstly, the creation of a new 19-person committee that would be led by the Attorney General and dominated by law enforcement which would create content rules that tech companies would have to follow to retain legal protections. Secondly, and the suggestion that has security folks up in arms, is that those rules could require tech companies to provide Feds-only access to encrypted communications.
The idea is that companies would have to "earn" their legal shield – hence the name of the bill, EARN IT – by following the best practices created by the committee.
Following significant pushback on those points, the Judiciary Committee made changes aimed at gaining the full approval of all its members. In the now-OK'd version of the bill, the commission, called the National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention, would still create its rules but it would be "voluntary" for online platforms to follow them. Instead, if tech companies did follow the commission's rules, it "would be a defense in any civil suit," said committee chair Lindsay Graham (R-SC).
Concerns over the law being used to force tech companies to introduce encryption backdoors led to an amendment [PDF], put forward by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), that stated online platforms won't face civil or criminal liability if they are unable to break end-to-end encryption in their own services.
Taken together, the amendments are intended to attract wide congressional support for the bill, and pave the way to open up Section 230. And in this instance, it worked, with the committee green-lighting the revised version by 22-0 votes on Thursday, allowing it to progress a little further toward the statute books.
However, privacy advocates and tech titans, as well as some lawmakers, remain strongly opposed to the law. For one, the proposed commission will not be made up of elected officials, and will still be able to create rules that do not need congressional approval, putting an extraordinary amount of censorship power into the hands of very few people with limited accountability.
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.
DOJ unveils Trump administration's legislation to reform tech's legal liability shield:
The Department of Justice proposed legislation Wednesday to reform a key legal liability shield for the tech industry known as Section 230.
The draft legislation focuses on two areas of reform. First, it aims to narrow the criteria online platforms must meet to earn the liability protections granted by Section 230. Second, it would carve out the statute's immunity for certain cases, like offenses involving child sexual abuse.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects online platforms from liability for their users' posts, but it also allows them to moderate and remove harmful content without being penalized.
The statute's protections helped tech platforms grow from the early days of the internet but have come under scrutiny in recent years as lawmakers and regulators more broadly question the tech industry's power.
Several lawmakers have proposed reforms to Section 230 in recent months, and President Donald Trump signed an executive order in May targeting the law, claiming to crack down on alleged "censorship" by tech platforms. Trump introduced the order shortly after Twitter slapped fact-check labels on his tweets for the first time.
Representatives from Twitter, Google and Facebook were not immediately available to comment about the DOJ's proposal, which would need to be passed by Congress.
[...] The DOJ's proposal specifically states that nothing in the statute should prevent enforcement under other types of laws, including antitrust laws. Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google have all faced antitrust scrutiny from lawmakers and enforcers. Outlets including The New York Times have reported that the DOJ is preparing an antitrust case against Google that could come as soon as this month.
"Online censorship goes far beyond the issue of free speech, it's also one of protecting consumers and ensuring they are informed of their rights and resources to fight back under the law," White House spokesperson Judd Deere said in a statement Tuesday. "State attorneys general are on the front lines of this issue and President Trump wants to hear their perspectives."
(Score: 2) by seeprime on Monday October 05 2020, @07:40PM (27 children)
Why now, unless they're looking to influence voters with how much action they're taken? This seems very transparent.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zocalo on Monday October 05 2020, @07:47PM (18 children)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by fadrian on Monday October 05 2020, @09:57PM
In this particular case, both political sides are crying for heads for completely opposite actions. This puts big tech in the uncomfortable position of choosing between (a) getting out of anything except cute kitten and ugly grandbaby posts (and we're still not sure that the former doesn't trigger dog lovers); (b) figuring out a politically defensible position on what is acceptable and what isn't; (c) allowing "anything"; (d) picking a winner/loser. All of these entail possibility of great loss. Either way, politicians get their desires met and/or tech's metaphorical heads roll.
I'd hope that the techs would have the balls to stand up to the side that is doing the most pushing and pick (d) ending up being able to apply political pressure afterwards. But most of them will probably waffle uncomfortably somewhere in the land of (b) forever.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 05 2020, @11:01PM (13 children)
Too late. Hearing, passing a law, getting the law rubber stamped as constitutional takes more than the few days to election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday October 06 2020, @07:27AM (12 children)
Personally, I think this is a problem of their own making. Just taking the US presidential elections (obviously it's a problem elsewhere as well) the issue of defining what content they consider is acceptable (their platform, their rules, remember?) and being consistent in enforcing that was already a thing in 2008, they did nothing. It got worse in 2012, they did nothing. It reached a new low in 2016, they did nothing. Surprising no one, it's looking like 2020 is going to continue the downward trend, and yet... nope, nothing. Frankly, I couldn't care less how tight the screws get turned on Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al, but the real casualty here is going to be free speech, and that's something that effects everyone regardless of their political leanings.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday October 06 2020, @08:06AM (11 children)
Really? Look, I don't use any of the Twitter or Facebook or Google as a soap box to promote my speech and, guess what, I don't feel like my free speech is curtailed.
So, why should I believe it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday October 06 2020, @12:06PM (1 child)
Sure, you could still grab a megaphone and exercise your right to say what you want to maybe a few thousand people at best, but who wants to do that anymore when they can post it online and get a potential audience of billions? Taking away your rights is hard, particularly on something like this, but chipping away at your ability to exercise it is much easier, and that's absolutely what this is likely to end up doing.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday October 06 2020, @12:22PM
Not for the site I'm hosting or in c0location
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 06 2020, @02:06PM (8 children)
The obvious question to ask here is why do you think that such curtailment would be restricted to Twitter, Facebook, or Google? Or even to the US? I gather Australia is playing its own games in this area.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 07 2020, @01:07AM (7 children)
Aren't you missing something? [xkcd.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:47AM (6 children)
We already see this problem on SoylentNews. For an infamous example, AthanasiusKircher demanded [soylentnews.org] that administrators do something about all that speechcrime (particularly by The Mighty Buzzard). It was insane, particularly the proposal to have the foxes (the ones doing the speechcrime) guard the hen house (police their own language). And then Azuma doubles down by threatening [soylentnews.org] to call in the Feds - because there has to be something illegal going on.
Censorship is a well-known slippery slope. Just because you have nothing to say on platforms that are presently being censored, doesn't mean that they'll stay contained those relatively safe spots for you.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:55AM (5 children)
No, indeed is not. It's a "missing context" one (revisit the xkcd and try to get it. Hovering above it may help)
And, shirley, a punitive intervention from the US govt will help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 07 2020, @01:46PM (4 children)
I don't buy that argument - not least because I think I got your context. You have repeatedly spoken merely of not being on the mediums of speech which are presently being censored. That is the freedom to not speak. That will never be freedom of speech which is a lot more. And as I already noted, what skullduggery starts on one medium routinely doesn't stay there.
Probably not, especially given that they're the same people doing other crazy stuff, like trying to ban useful encryption.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 07 2020, @02:22PM (3 children)
Oh, khallow, a bit of respect, will you? Why are you raising false dichotomies here?
This is my freedom to speak using platforms different from Google/FB/Twitter. And my choice is not rooted in their "censorship", but in my dislike of their privacy invasion - I don't want to sacrifice my right to privacy to gain the "exposure" they promise for my speech.
My right to free speech is no lesser than it was during '90-ies when there were no Google/FB/Twitter and I assert that's the same for yours.
I respect their right to private property: their infrastructure, their work for providing the "platforming services", therefore they have the right to set up and modify the ToS as they see fit.
I also respect the right to self-determination of people living in different countries. If they don't like a certain kind of speech, who am I to tell them they are wrong when their democratically elected legislators create rules that are applicable to their country? If you don't like those rules being applied to you when using Google/FB/Twitter, your problem is with Google/FB/Twitter, not with the other countries. Boo-bloody-hoo, cry me a river if it costs them more to segregate their platform so that they follow the laws of the countries they choose to operate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 07 2020, @02:51PM (2 children)
That isn't more specific in a meaningful way. You're wasting our time, particularly given that isn't your actual argument!
Why you don't use those platforms is completely irrelevant.
Sorry, you're wrong here. As I already noted, freedom is not merely the right to refuse to use a given medium. Funny how we end up right back at my previous post despite your verbiage above.
Do you similarly respect their users' rights to protection from fraud? These mediums were for years presented as respecting free speech. Then when a huge number of people are locked in to the platform, they altered the deal. Bait-and-switch. And are they really following their own ToS? My understanding is that there is little recourse even in the courts because the product was free. It's immense value to the user isn't relevant for the most part.
We also have the suspicious coordination of censorship. That's cartel behavior (likely illegal in the US, let me add) or acting as proxy for government (which if the US or its state governments are involved, is a case where the First Amendment would hold).
This all holds whether or not you use the services in question.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 07 2020, @03:10PM (1 child)
Agreed.
The fact that you choose to take my argument in a way I don't intend and misrepresent its meaning is your problem.
I have all the freedom to use any way of expression I want and refuse those that I don't. That's enough for me.
If you have other preferences than me, that's your problem.
I don't know about that right. It may exist, but I didn't exercise it for myself; a bit of care who am I dealing with went (and still goes) a long way.
And? Morally reprehensible as it may be, they didn't do anything illegal: their ToS always had the small print of "We reserve the right to alter this ToS as we see fit, pray that we won't alter it further". Adhesion contract, take it or leave it. Or negotiate another contract that protect your interest. Or find another provider.
If you have that suspicion, deal the way you see fit.
Although, why should the govt have to do in any way with it is beyond me. Aren't libertarians on the idea that any imposition of authority in the relations between private parties is the essence of all evil?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 07 2020, @06:19PM
Say something different then. Twice you've written the argument in the way I took it:
Don't want to be interpreted that way? Then don't repeatedly say it that way. It's not that hard.
Except when you don't, of course. It's not that hard to get. You don't have all that freedom and it's weakening every year.
That doesn't make it legal. Where's that fine print in their advertising, for example?
Let us recall that government already imposed here - for example, in China and the EU among many others. A lot of the present problems of lack of freedom of these platforms comes from that interference.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by driverless on Monday October 05 2020, @11:03PM (2 children)
In breaking news, Zuckerberg will be represented by a cardboard cutout of himself that says "yes, we did wrong, we're sorry, we're working to correct it, it won't happen again".
In fact it'll be the same cutout they've used the previous dozen times this has happened.
(Score: 4, Informative) by krishnoid on Tuesday October 06 2020, @12:16AM
"Sir, you've said that to us the last dozen times you've testified before Congress."
"Nope, that was the previous cutout. He had to leave the company due to accidental water damage. I, however, can definitely promise you this won't happen again, and in addition, I can guarantee longer-term accountability than my predecessor due to an additional protective polymer layer applied to my surface."
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday October 07 2020, @04:47PM
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg [wikiquote.org]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2020, @08:37PM (4 children)
That is exactly what this is about [politico.com]. It is a desperate move by the White House grasping at straws.
Good thing we've got that "separation of powers" thing to keep each branch honest, right?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 06 2020, @09:42AM (3 children)
Protip: The Senate is independent of the White House. Trump "grasping at straws" may or may not influence the Senate sometimes, but the Senate remains independent of the White House.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 06 2020, @01:16PM
How can you say that with a straight face? I guess that means there will be no Supreme Court nominations until after January? Remember how the Senate trial had all those witnesses during the impeachment hearing, like John Bolton? Talk about a reality distortion field.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 06 2020, @01:43PM (1 child)
"but the Senate remains independent of the White House."
Only insofar as their capitalization derive from diverse sources. Right now they are all fingers of the same black glove. Which is yet another argument for the dissolution of the "persons" clause in the dictionary act.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 06 2020, @02:10PM
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2020, @09:01PM (1 child)
Notably when George W. Bush was elected about a billion dollars worth of lawsuits against redmond were dismissed right after he took office. They made a billion dollars on his election, and they also controlled the bulk of DNC media outlets at the time. Gee, I wonder if those things were related.
"privacy and media domination.", is only a problem if they aren't on your side. The bipartisan nature of the event really should just be confirmation of what the red pillers already know: the only people voting in a two party system in this country, are those voting for third parties.
The companies will come to amicable terms, which will probably mean providing real time analytics and warrantless account access to the feds. In return they will get to keep running the country on behalf of the government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @01:54AM
"and warrantless account access to the feds"
So what you're saying, is making them like ISP's.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 06 2020, @12:21AM
Because if you would have been paying attention, they have been talking about it in subcomitee for years and gather evidence as well as holding hearings. This is another step in the process. Sometimes, government works as intended
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2020, @08:13PM
they should open a facebook account and join it so they can discuss it there with social distancing. oh and also, hashtag "let's discuss twitter".
i am sure only constructive comments will be made on those platforms ^_^
(Score: 3, Touché) by krishnoid on Monday October 05 2020, @09:01PM
If this ever happens, I think people should start out on the microphone by faking a Russian accent. :-P
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2020, @09:16PM (1 child)
Go straight to the capital punishment.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2020, @11:08PM
Maybe you should switch to decaf.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2020, @09:17PM (18 children)
They want to turn the Internet into cable TV and broadcasting media. Only those with money can have an opinion. Everyone else's opinion must align with moneyed interests.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday October 05 2020, @11:16PM (17 children)
Who is the "they" here? The internet moguls or the politicians?
In either event, I can't see how anyone would think that the media/socialMedia situation in the country is remotely healthy. These industries form a massive propaganda enterprise but worse, social media especially has taken up an enforcer role and its power will only grow as more of the illiberally indoctrinated take up jobs within these spheres. Those who run media/socialMedia and/or employ either in their crusades, like all fanatics require conformity of thought and the media fulfills its role by amplifying and publishing the canon of acceptable thought while social media polices users in the digital and the meat worlds to enforce compliance. How can one tell that this circumstance is dangerous? Any entity or person claiming access to absolute truth and moral superiority, and which/who has the power to dictate compliance -- that's a danger sign. It's the stuff of The Crusades, suicide bombings, repression of science -- when unassailable scripture replaces free expression, whether that scripture is the divine word of Jesus or DiAngelo, once an idea cannot be questioned (let alone ridiculed), all of humanity is in for a dark age.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2020, @11:23PM (16 children)
There are plenty of social media competitors. If any social media platform goes too far people will simply flock to a competitor.
In the case of mainstream media this is not really the case. In the case of mainstream media there are only so many options being delivered via broadcast and cableco and they all seem to be controlled by similar interests.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 06 2020, @01:11AM (13 children)
If you don't toe the line, your payment processors, web hosts, DDOS protection and more will be targeted. Starting your own bank, internet, and country is no big deal though.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Tuesday October 06 2020, @05:03AM (12 children)
Yes, but you left out the part where any platform that allows wrongthink gets smeared by the MSM as being totally devoted to neo-nazies. Look what happened to discord.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 06 2020, @05:24AM (11 children)
You mean this?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/dygakq/millions-of-neo-nazi-discord-messages-dumped-online [vice.com]
That hasn't seemed to the other 250 million users or 6.7 million servers. Perhaps it wasn't about the platform that was the problem at all?
https://www.businessofapps.com/data/discord-statistics/ [businessofapps.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by shortscreen on Tuesday October 06 2020, @09:20PM (10 children)
What happened to Discord is that some people were 'allowed' to post wrongthink on it, and as a result we got long-ass articles like this one [slate.com] bashing the entire platform because the wrongthink needles in the haystack weren't all found and censored quickly enough.
So, if you don't do a good enough job of implementing the censorship regime, then you get a headline saying "XYZ is a Safe Space for White Supremacists." And that's for a platform that already bans certain types of speech in their TOS and agrees that censorship is necessary and good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @12:47AM (9 children)
So...let me make sure I understand your position.
1. When a platform (such as Discord) enforces their TOS, that's fine;
2. However, no one (whether it be the press or anyone else) should be allowed to write or speak about such enforcement;
3. Those who advocate for the wholesale oppression of other humans should receive preferential treatment (non-enforcement of TOS) than those who don't.
Is that correct?
Please note that I am not trying to put words in your mouth. Rather, the above is the message I took from your comment. I'd welcome it if you'd either confirm my understanding or explain how your position differs from my understanding.
Thanks!
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Wednesday October 07 2020, @07:48AM (8 children)
1) Yes.
2) Establishment media has turned against free speech. A platform that allows too much uncontrolled speech will be targetted with criticism painting it as a vehicle for whatever convenient villain can be found (could be neo-nazis, pedos, CCP propagandists, etc.) as a means to discourage such platforms. Nobody said the establishment shouldn't be allowed to promote a narrative, I am just noting one of the consequences of going against them.
3) Nobody should receive preferential treatment. Instead, what we are seeing is that platforms trying to promote a political agenda (eg. twatter) are finding it very difficult to use TOS as a cover to do so without using selective enforcement. The TOS are too vague, and if applied consistently could catch their own political allies in the same net. However, they can't clarify the TOS because they would be, in effect, spelling out their political agenda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @11:16AM (7 children)
I went back and looked at your earlier message and read the Slate article [slate.com] you linked.
It doesn't really seem to be demonizing Discord. Rather, it seems to be more focused on the message than the platform.
In fact, nowhere in the article does its author claim that the folks who run Discord are complicit. In fact, the second paragraph says:
While the article does complain about the other Nazi channels and takes the Discord folks to task for not being diligent, it most certainly doesn't suggest that Discord should be banned or shunned.
What's more, since the publication of that article (Oct 09, 2018), the number of folks using Discord nearly doubled by the end of 2019 [businessofapps.com]:
And revenue quadrupled:
Since Discord is prospering, when you say "I am just noting one of the consequences of going against them," to which "consequences" are you referring? Becoming even more popular? Pulling down much higher revenues?
Or did "the establishment" you refer to fail miserably in its dastardly plot to crush Discord?
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Wednesday October 07 2020, @12:51PM (6 children)
A headline like that one does a fine job on its own of dragging their name through the mud. Discord fell in line and stepped up their censorship game. If you want to know the additional consequences of NOT falling in line, then we'll need a different case study.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @06:52PM (5 children)
Your narrative doesn't seem to comport with what the founders of Discord say [forbes.com] about it:
But then, I guess they're just lying because they don't want to get disappeared to an Egyptian black site, right? Please.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Wednesday October 07 2020, @09:10PM (4 children)
In what way? I laid out a timeline where a big stink was made about communications on their platform and they responded by cracking down.
Sounds like they are talking about said crack down right here. But that wasn't the end of it, as your quote says deleting 100 groups was only "a first step."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @09:33PM (3 children)
Except by the time the Slate article was published, they had *already* started cracking down, as was explicitly stated in the Slate article *you* linked.
So, no. Your timeline is incorrect.
And what business is it of yours? Hell, Discord isn't even publicly traded. Not that it makes any difference, as they are not the government.
If those guys want to require everyone to post lolcats or gay midget porn or anything else on their platform, then those are *their* free speech rights. Unless, you're claiming that private entities and individuals are *required* to host *all* speech.
Is that what you're claiming?
If so, why don't I come over to your house and do some free expression (how about a Goatse marathon?) in your living room? Because *I* have free speech rights and you *have* to allow me to use them on your private property.
I'll go beyond that to say that while I personally believe that hateful pieces of nazi shit should absolutely *not* be censored by the government, they have no place on any of my *private* property.
That the owners of Discord decided that as well, is *their* business, not yours. If you don't like it, vote with your feet/wallet and don't use Discord. To that point, it certainly seems that 250 million people like Discord better *without* hateful Nazi spew.
If you want hateful Nazi spew, there are plenty of places you can go to find it. Or you can host it yourself -- because you do have the right to free expression -- what you don't have is the right to *demand* that others host *your* free speech.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Thursday October 08 2020, @07:46AM (2 children)
LOL, AC decides to finally stop beating around the bush and confess love for online censorship. Who could have seen THAT coming?
It's funny you should say that, because let me tell you about this long-ass article I saw on Slate which was all about Discord's censorship policy and passing judgment on the perceived failings thereof. You're saying it wasn't any of Slate's business eh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2020, @02:54AM (1 child)
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything even vaguely like that.
I didn't say anything even close to that either.
But you know that. I'll clarify anyway.
The founders of Discord *own* the company. It is their *business* (company).
It's not *your* business (company) (or Slate's). As such, you (or Slate) don't get to *set policy* for Discord, as neither you (nor Slate) *own* the business.
You or Slate or anyone else can (and I support your right to do so) say just about anything you want about Discord, it's policies or just about anything or anyone else. Go ahead and knock yourself out, and more power to you.
Are you're arguing (a point you ignored in my earlier post) that *you* (or anyone else) has the right to have their speech *hosted* on the private property of others, without any input from the owners? Are you?
If you are, and *you* can force Discord to host speech it doesn't wish to host, then *I* can come over to your house and have my Goatse marathon in your living room or put up naked photos of Mitch McConnell on your lawn and you have no say about it.
Is that your assertion?
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Friday October 09 2020, @08:09AM
Well, you dragged this thread along for days and twice preached about the sacred right of private companies to censor as much as they want, despite the thread never being about that.
Thanks, I will.
If it had been, I would have said so, which I didn't. Go back and read the first post, it was only two sentences long.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 06 2020, @02:57AM (1 child)
No, because the hosting companies will just drop them for allowing 'too much' speech. Nowadays, you really have to have a massive amount of money, or be extremely obscure, in order to run a platform that is permissive with regards to what speech it allows.
The same corporate media outlets that led us into Iraq based on lies are allowed to thrive and are even promoted on sites like Youtube, though. Anyone speaking truth to power - like the actual left does - will be removed or demonetized. We'll quickly entering a period where anyone questioning the military industrial complex are labeled as 'conspiracy theorists' and silenced, while the corporate media mostly ignores our endless wars because they benefit from them indirectly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 06 2020, @01:12PM
As long as the government doesn't create barriers to starting up your own hosting company then this is no big deal. New competitors will enter the market and take up the demand.
The problem with cable and broadcasting is the government creates barriers to entry via cableco and broadcasting monopolies. That needs to stop. First of all internet service providers should be separate from cable content providers. The internet should strictly be a dumb pipe or else cableco companies will try their best to penalize competing content and promote their own content.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Monday October 05 2020, @09:59PM
Reelection rates could dip below 90%
Need new scapegoats. Russia/China is last year's bullshit.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05 2020, @11:17PM
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-outlook-biden-blue-wave-boost-growth-goldman-sachs-2020-10-1029649255 [businessinsider.com]
C'mon Y'All Qaeda, weren't you worried about total collapse without the economy? Time to vote your conscience!
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday October 06 2020, @07:00AM
This is just Congresscritters showing off their power. Also angling for some juicy campaign contributions (nice company you have there; be a shame if something...happened to it).
If they were actually serious about taking action, they would send the bureaucrats.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @02:20AM (1 child)
Sell the cure. Or better yet, run a shakedown, and pretend it's a cure.
This problem was partly contrived by congress. By getting rid of common cairrage they put ISP's and social media companies in the same business. It broke a demarcation line that could have been used to limit corporate power over civil discourse. But god knows we can't have that. /s
A lot of the cognitive dissonance that people are experiencing, (not counting that resulting from actual felony computer intrusion that some of the readers here dabble in) are derived from integration, as much as interface. Carriers are selling instantly provisioning overlay networks as business products. My guess is they are probably selling a subset of products that are passing along their consumer data flows over those nets.
IOW, Google sells web analytics. Carriers may be selling your actual TCP/IP flows. You would think that wiretapping laws would cause the two to be differentiated. What I'm seeing these days, is that both carriers and social media providers think that both web analytics and transmission replay are the same thing. So there is plenty of criminality to go around. I've read the state computer intrusion laws where I am, and they are plenty broad to prosecute under for a lot of activities.
The fact that these issues even got to congress is an indictment of the state prosecutors office. This shouldn't be a problem at the congressional level because the state should have intervened on behalf of state statutes hundreds of times before now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 07 2020, @03:15PM
Oh, and Sam at BIS, I am talking about you.