SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
US Senators Mark Warner (D-VA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on Friday introduced draft legislation to limit the legal protections available to social networks, websites, and anything else that provides an "interactive computer service."
The three politicians proposed a bill they're calling the SAFE TECH Act [PDF], which narrows the liability protection afforded to organizations by Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act.
[...] Section 230 of the CDA is the legal foundation of the modern internet because it provides a way for orgs to host user-generated content while, more or less, avoiding legal liability for that content. And it allows companies to maintain that qualified immunity even when they moderate user-generated content.
[...] "A platform that hosts organizing efforts for armed militia groups making direct calls for violence faces no legal consequences for its actions, even when reported by users hundreds of times in advance of the tragic events," laments Warner, pointing at the lack of consequences for online services that were used to organize the attempted insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The bill proposes to clarify where Section 230 immunity does not apply. It seeks to remove platform protection for:
- Ads and other paid content, so platforms can't profit from unlawful or harmful services.
- Civil rights law and antitrust law violation claims.
- Harassment/cyberstalking claims related to protected classes (e.g. sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, etc).
- Wrongful death claims.
- Alien Tort Claims Act claims (e.g. allowing survivors of the Rohingya genocide to sue Facebook).
Also at Reuters which adds:
There are several other pieces of legislation aimed at changing the law doing the rounds, including one from Republican Senators Roger Wicker and Lindsey Graham. There is another one from Democratic Senator Joe Manchin and a bipartisan bill from Democrat Brian Schatz and Republican John Thune.
What do other countries do?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @06:15AM (7 children)
Fine them billions and pay the bureaucracy, what else?
(Score: 3, Disagree) by fakefuck39 on Monday February 08 2021, @07:07AM (5 children)
This isn't about facebook doing something illegal they can get fined for. This is about facebook having qualified immunity from lawsuits, for hosting content that's illegal, and making money off of it. It's about about me purchasing an ad on facebook naming you a pedofile, making up fake arrests for you, putting a photoshopped picture of you having sex with a little girl in the background, and paying facebook money to run that ad and show it specifically to your coworkers. Right now, facebook is immune from prosecution for running that ad. After this change, you can sue facebook in addition to the person who paid facebook to run that ad. Just like you can do to a newspaper hosting that ad.
There's no one to fine here. There is just undeserved qualified immunity to remove.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday February 08 2021, @09:06AM (4 children)
if FB actually accepted and ran an add like the one you describe they would not have section 230 protection or any section for that mater, from a lawsuit.
If on the other hand you put up those claims and your "evidence" on your FB page FB could not be sued unless they left the content up when they received word from your target's lawyer to pull it down.
Section 230 protects sites like Soylent from getting sued by anyone who gets slandered by some commenters post just because Soylent hosted the content for a time as long as Soylent showed due diligence in taking the slanderous content down once informed of it.
IANAL but I've got a year of law school so far. And you have ...?
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday February 08 2021, @09:13AM (3 children)
>And you have ...?
I have actually read the pdf of the proposed changes instead of just the summary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @10:04AM (2 children)
Yeah, given how often you are wrong on tech stuff, I don't think I'd be taking your Dunning-Krugered legal advice either.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by fakefuck39 on Monday February 08 2021, @11:12AM (1 child)
You do seem to have this big comprehension issue, likely due to low IQ. Thinking I'm wrong on the tech stuff I've been doing for decades is one example. The other is thinking my comment on section 230, applicable to huge social media, is me giving legal advice to you. Only someone who is not quite all there, up there, would think that. This type of demented thinking that you exhibit is due to your autism and medication abuse, for which there is no cure.
But as a bonus, knowing you are the way you are - a sad existence in a tunnel of hyper-fixated dementia, gives me pleasure and happiness. Now why don't you write us a little song and spam it on every post? I miss those.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @03:18PM
There are plenty of people out there who get away with doing stuff wrong or poorly. Sometimes it doesn't even catch up with them ever. They manage to skate through life as a 'wrong' loser. It's just the way life works.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @07:36AM
I think most other countries which may have governments WITH any spine, find that the Online Giants laugh at them as "US law applies", while being tax registered in the Cayman Is or Ireland. I say ALL countries should band together and sue these "host" nations in the International Court (in the Hague).. for trillions in losses, privacy, degradation of democracy, etc, etc and much more highly deserved and way long overdue etc.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @06:18AM (77 children)
Bipartisan support for destroying the internet. Well, large swaths of it anyway.
What constitutes a harassment/cyberstalking claim? It doesn't matter, because there will be a huge overcorrection to avoid liability.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 08 2021, @06:34AM (56 children)
Blindingly obvious attempt to create de facto hate speech law since just passing it through congress would be a blatant 1A violation and wouldn't even stand up in the first court it hit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Troll) by fakefuck39 on Monday February 08 2021, @06:42AM (38 children)
This isn't trying to censor speech or make it illegal. What it does is remove protections for that speech. Right now, you can make up a bunch of fake shit to target a business or person, take out a huge ad on facebook, and get sued by that business - not for the speech, for the malicious tort. Facebook however is protected from being named in the lawsuit for tunning that ad. A TV station however, is not.
What this looks to do is remove that protection from facebook. Not for comments users post. For things like the ads it allows people to pay them money to run. This isn't about your 1A rights. This is about them charging money for an ad placement contract, then displaying that ad. They chose to do that and entered into a business transaction - not the users commenting. They should absolutely not be protected from being named in a lawsuit for that.
So yes, it'll stand up in court, because it's not about speech, nor are the lawsuits. 1A does not magically protect you from a tort you have committed, just because you're free to say the tort.
That's what's blindingly obvious about this. Apparently not to you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @07:07AM (1 child)
Ahem, are your reading skills fully developed, son? Your intellectual abilities too? Good, good, glad to hear.
Now, follow the text with your finger and stop when you get to "Harassment/cyberstalking claims related to protected classes (e.g. sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, etc).". 'Twill do you good.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by fakefuck39 on Monday February 08 2021, @07:16AM
Mine are. Are yours?
Here's the section you're bitching about that they're trying to add to section 230.
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit, impair, or prevent any action alleging discrimination on the basis of any protected class, or conduct that has the effect or consequence of discriminating on the basis of any protected class, under any Federal or State law."
Apparently to you adding this is a violation of the first amendment? I do believe your eyes can read the words. You clearly have trouble with comprehension though. Do give comprehending the words you're reading. "twill" do you good. Oh who am I kidding, you're too dumb and too angry at fake shit you make up to be angry, to comprehend anything. Keep on living in your own little reality, and keep on truckin'
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @07:12AM (27 children)
Did you not read TFS?
WTF you think "laments" means in that context? It means they want to reverse that situation. It means they want companies to censor more, not less, as was the intent with the original discussion around 230.
This is an amazing bait and switch, but hey, we're talking Democrats, the party of peace (where peace=warmongering), the working man (where working man=Wall St.), and equity (where equity=racism). They've just about mastered the trick of saying words that mean the exact opposite.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday February 08 2021, @07:19AM (21 children)
What I know is you did not read the pdf, and only read the summary. You should read the pdf of the actual text you're trying to add. It's only a few pages, real big font. But you won't read it, because if you did, you couldn't make up fake shit to bitch and rage about. No, what they are doing has zero to do with what the GOP tried to do by repealing section 230.
(Score: 4, Informative) by shortscreen on Monday February 08 2021, @01:05PM (20 children)
The person that wrote the summary clearly had read the PDF and is correct.
If section 230 were amended as per the PDF then it will explicitly not protect service providers from:
being sued for discrimination against a protected class
being sued under antitrust law
being sued in connection with stalking/harassment that concerns sex/race/religion/etc. (regular stalking/harassment apparently get a free pass)
being sued under the alien tort claims act
being sued for a wrongful death
That third item certainly looks like it would create a frenzy around censoring anything vaguely reminiscent of "hate speech".
The part about paid content also says "or, in whole or in part, created or funded the creation of the speech" which raises the question of whether monetized user content would create a blanket liability.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday February 08 2021, @01:32PM (19 children)
the comment i replied to states first amendment issues with this. i stated this has nothing to do with it.
in addition
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit, impair, or prevent any action alleging discrimination on the basis of any protected class, or conduct that has the effect or consequence of discriminating on the basis of any protected class, under any Federal or State law."
to me, this does not 'create a frenzy.' it means things like facebook getting sued for an action they are responsible for. like auto-promoting onto people's news feeds hate speech and fake stories urging people to 'kill the nigs,' because they're popular. Nowhere does that tell me they're getting sued for someone posting a hate speech comment.
I also don't get your point on monetized content. If some content a user wrote, that is a tort, is turned by facebook into a source of income, they are now a drug dealer, just not a manufacturer. how about before they sell something, they verify it's legal to sell. like literally every other business.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @04:08PM (14 children)
The 1st Amendment does not enumerate any permissible restrictions on speech. Therefore none are permitted. "No law" means NO LAW. If you want to restrict speech, you have to make another amendment allowing you to do so. All rules regulating speech much be repealed. They are in direct violation. You have no right to classify speech to suit your predilections
And we have to make an internet you bastards can't censor! Go cry in the corner if you see something that offends you!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @09:29PM
Wild guess here, you really wanted Trump to have the national guard clear out the peaceful BLM protesters?
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday February 08 2021, @09:32PM (12 children)
LOL, the first amendment, in fact the entire bill of rights, limits Government power. It is not a law for people or companies to follow. A private person or a company can censor anything they want. I can say "you're not allowed in my house if you use the phrase "angry uninformed idiot." And that's perfectly legal.
No one is making a law to force censorship. They are removing qualified immunity from content the private company hosts - meaning people are allowed to take them to court. In fact, this addition to section 230 doesn't even make facebook responsible for the content the users write - they're still immune from getting sued for that. It's if they take that content which is a tort, and sell it as ads or monetized content. Facebook has to take action to push that tort content into places the original commenter did not put it.
I'll go cry in the corner when you pass the 8th grade american history test, which teaches you what the bill of rights is and who it applies to.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @10:22PM (11 children)
I.e. outsourcing any violation to a "private entity" is A-OK. Got it. Obviously, some fucks now believe they found a backdoor in the Constitution.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday February 08 2021, @11:20PM (10 children)
Right, right now outsourcing a violation to a private entity is A-OK. The added verbage makes it not ok for the private entity, just like it's not ok for you. And it doesn't even make it illegal - it simply removes the shield from the private entity. Some fucks indeed found a backdoor - not to the constitution, since that's to protect you from the government, not another private person making a tort against you. They found a backdoor to liability by lobbying to make section 230 too broad. The backdoor is being closed. As opposed to trump's plan which was to get rid of section 230, making the private entity liable for user comments, this change only makes them liable if they take that illegal comment and monetize it, by putting it somewhere the original user did not, like promoting it on someone's wall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @12:28AM (9 children)
Baby steps to tyranny. We have the right to make money any way we want. Speech as contraband is even more profitable!
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday February 09 2021, @12:36AM (8 children)
you do not have the right to tort someone. under the old section 230, facebook did, just not you. niw that's getting fixed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @12:49AM (7 children)
That's ok, who needs facebook? We need a more decentralized concept, more resistant to gov/corp censorship.
Your 'tort' crap is bullshit tyranny, must be defeated with extreme prejudice
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday February 09 2021, @12:54AM (6 children)
so if a guy who hates you fakes an arrest record for you, showing embezzlement, and sends it to hr at a job you applied to, a tort, he should be protected from being sued by you. without that protection it's tyranny. we got different definitions for that word. it's your definition, vs what tyranny actually means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @01:48AM (4 children)
Under existing law, without any changes to section 230, that person is already not protected.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday February 09 2021, @01:57AM (3 children)
Well good, you finally get my point. Yes, under existing law that person is not protected. But Facebook would be. This puts facebook on equal footing with the person you speak of.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @02:14AM (2 children)
and, just like the post office or the phone company should not be liable for the actions of its users, Facebook should not be liable for the actions of its users.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @02:17AM
(and, in the case of criminal law, just like the phone company or even the post office or UPS or Fedex, Facebook would have to cooperate with authorities to catch whoever is breaking the law. Under existing law Facebook would also, within reason, have to remove illegal content such as content that incites violence. No changes to section 230 are needed).
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday February 09 2021, @02:28AM
which they would not be if this bill is passed. great that we agree. what they would be liable for is their own actions in monetizing while distributing the illegal content to places the user did not put it. the user would be liable for his content, facebook would be liable if they insert it into your wall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @04:11PM
he should be protected from being sued by you
That's right. You sue the guy who believes the lies. He is the sole person responsible for his actions, not the people who tell lies. Read your parables. The original sin is the failure to resist temptation, not the temptation itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @06:16PM (3 children)
Your comment suggests you don't understand the issue at play. If a newspaper publishes a comment that is in violation of some law in some region, they *themselves* can be held liable for it - even if they did not themselves formulate the comment. If Propaganda Times quotes Bob saying something naughty about Joe (that is sufficient for claims of defamation), Joe can sue Propaganda Times for defamation.
Getting rid of these protections, as framed in the proposed law, would not make sites responsible for just their own actions, but for any action by any user on their site. For instance it's likely your own posts qualify as defamation, libel, or some such under at least one state's laws. Now the person you are making these comments towards could sue Soylent News, as if they themselves had made the comment.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday February 08 2021, @09:24PM (2 children)
>would not make sites responsible for just their own actions, but for any action by any user on their site
nope. you should really read that pdf. it's literally a few pages. what you're saying - facebook being responsible for the comments of others, is literally nowhere in there. now if facebook runs and gets paid for ads, they can get sued for that ad's content. If they monetize a tort comment by pushing it onto your wall, they can get sued for that. It is limited to facebook's actions, not the actions of the site's users.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @02:02AM (1 child)
"Section 230 protections are not limitless, requiring providers to still remove material illegal on a federal level such as copyright infringement."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 [wikipedia.org]
Section 230 does not protect against not removing illegal material. You can still be criminally liable for such things.
Trying to make platforms liable for civil disputes between parties is like trying to make the post office liable if someone sues the post office because someone else sent them a threatening letter. Within reason perhaps the post office can be made to block such letters from further being delivered or can work with law enforcement to catch the responsible party but the post office should not be liable by the recipient of a threatening letter that wishes to sue the post office in civil court.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday February 09 2021, @02:19AM
>Section 230 does not protect against not removing illegal material
so I guess it's very smart that that's not what this bill is addressing, since it's already covered.
>make platforms liable for civil disputes between parties
so I guess it's very smart that that's not what this bill is doing.
what this bill is doing, is making facebook open to lawsuits if facebook takes that content, created by its user, and does something with it. For example, taking an illegal tort post, and monetizing it to make money. or taking a tort ad someone created, charging them for it, and inserting it into your screen.
it's the same logic that applies to being able to sue a store for selling meth. because they didn't make it, but they put it on the shelf.
what this change does not cover, and which would still be protected by section 230, is a user posting an illegal comment, and facebook not being liable for the contents of that comment. Now if facebook does something with that comment, like presenting it somewhere else where the user did not put it - that, they are liable for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @06:54PM (4 children)
It's quite telling how it was the democrats that were initially for slavery (the south) and the republicans that were against it (the north, with Abraham Lincoln). The republicans were the ones against racism and the democrats were for it.
Now it's the same thing over again, only this time, the democrats are in favor of racism against whites and the republicans are against it.
I guess racism just goes with being a democrat.
Makes sense because socialist countries tend to be more mono-cultural.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @07:58PM (3 children)
It also makes sense because it's capitalism that promotes meritocracy whereas socialism is what tends to end up in creating these class/cast systems where your rank is predetermined and working harder doesn't result in upward mobility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @09:00PM (2 children)
Yes and what the fuck are "protected classes"? The idea of the liberal rule of law is that everyone should be equal before it. [wikipedia.org] When exactly did we decide we were ditching liberalism and granting special protections for certain groups?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @12:02AM (1 child)
You could build a case for specific exceptions you think are not right, however don't you think someone in a wheel chair should be able to get into the post office? Ideological absolutism is the path towards fascism, ironically enough for you.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @01:53AM
Helen Keller [disabilitymuseum.org] and the British socialist left [theguardian.com] didn't did they - how's that for irony?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 08 2021, @05:42PM (7 children)
Pay closer attention, it removes protections for legal speech.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by fakefuck39 on Monday February 08 2021, @09:34PM (6 children)
Please point out in the pdf where it says that. But to do that, you'd have to actually read the thing you're talking about. And that, for you, would be a very hard task. After all, it's like 6 pages of size 14 double-spaced text. That can take you days to read.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @11:39PM (5 children)
Are you being deliberately obtuse? What a legislative text states de-jure and the effects of a law are different things.
If injury to reputation is an irreparable harm, social media sites would de-facto be forced to screen for comments such as yours or be swamped with legal complaints -- everyone knows TMB could easily read the PDF in a day if he wasn't too busy fishing.
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday February 08 2021, @11:52PM (4 children)
Lol how does that paragraph remove protection for legal speech?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @12:11AM (3 children)
I already explained it to you. [vocabulary.com]
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday February 09 2021, @12:38AM (2 children)
no, you claimed it did, without saying how. your argument is litetally 'nuh-huh.'
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @01:17AM (1 child)
I explained the effect of the law upon those of us living in reality but I digress; there was no argument, "litetally" or otherwise.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @07:07PM
It's no different than what copy protection laws do to Youtube. Now anyone that falsely claims infringement can easily create all sorts of chaos for content creators (and platforms) with little punishment on the part of those that issue false takedowns.
They want to make it easy to issue false torts and more expensive for platforms to police everything.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @07:19AM
1st Ameliorment Rights to kidde sick stuff and QAnon planning, and cyberstocking and revenge catfishing? I don't think so. Buzzard is a leetle off his rocker! This is the kind of stuff that will call exaeta back to SN, to complain about the blocking of totemo hentai from his free peaches. Momotaro pron? That is just sick, and not constitutionally protected at all.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @08:27AM (5 children)
Just came here looking for the stupid alt-right switch to how removing 230 protections would be bad now.
^ is TMB's identity politics in full force
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 08 2021, @05:46PM (4 children)
It was bad when Trump ranted on it too. Doesn't matter who does it, it means SN has to relocate if it passes.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @09:35PM (3 children)
Yet you failed to call out anyone that promoted repealing 230 protections and bitched about censorship by the big platforms. Just more of your soft-spine back tracking. I guess the other side has to try out the bad thing before you believe the bad consequences might happen? Almost like your political opinions are heavily reliant upon which group of humans promotes them?
You're lucky I don't have the time or give enough of a shit to go digging through your old comments. If someone doesn't believe you were pro 230 repeal a few months ago then that is their problem and likely their brain is in a smiliar condition to yours.
I'm sure you've heard this before, but human brains are highly capable of self-deception. Perhaps you should revisit your own comments in the section 230 related articles and journals, see if you made some comments you no longer agre with. If you truly are self-deceiving then it is only to your own benefit to find out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @09:45PM (2 children)
Was scrolling through and saw ^ modded troll and laughed to myself at the sensitivity some people have to criticism, then noticed the troll mod disappeared upon refresh. While I think the troll mod was lame, I do think SN should retain some record of admin actions like changing comment moderations. Even if the reversal stands it would be good for a community site to know what is happening with the community..
Moderation is mostly about people's feelings anyway.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 09 2021, @01:01AM (1 child)
Disappearing moderations now? This is just creepy. What's even the point of having a mod system if it can be erased on a whim?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @07:02AM
Trust in big brother
They know best, and totally don't have a CoC, let alone one that allows free speech restrictions on "filthy" or "unwanted" commentary wrapped into the spam mod /eyeroll
my opinion is that at least it is safe to say the spam mod is mostly not abused.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by helel on Monday February 08 2021, @04:09PM (9 children)
I thought section 230 was a blight that gave tech companies too much power to act as publishers without any consequence? Shouldn't removing it's protection from tech companied be a good thing? That's what you and the other conservatives on here have told me.
The objections of every conservative that's supported the repeal of section 230 is completely hollow. Yes, removing or restricting section 230 is a bad move but it was a bad move three months ago when R's wanted to do the same. The policy hasn't changed, who's in charge has. If that changes your opinion that just means it was never about free speech. It was only about your team.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @05:11PM (6 children)
The devil is in the details. In a nutshell:
- Conservatives want to *remove* section 230 effectively to destroy large platforms since they are increasingly censoring conservative political views, acting more as publishers than platforms.
- Democrats want to *tweak* section 230 to coerce *all* platforms into engaging in censorship of specifically targeted views which will overlap significantly with "anything we don't like".
Conservative motivation: Removing section 230 gets rid of Facebook, Twitter, etc at least in America, because you simply cannot operate at their scale without such protections.
Democrat motivation: "Tweaking" section 230 gets rid of any "free speech" alternative to Facebook, Twitter, etc since such tweaks effectively make anything short of Twitter-like censorship, illegal.
(Score: 2) by helel on Monday February 08 2021, @06:06PM (1 child)
You either need censors (human or AI) to comb through every post for "dangerous" content or you do not. They could ban nothing but Monty Python references and the effect would be the same on the sites that need to enforce the rules.
Now sure, maybe you want full removal instead of partial removal but that would still make this a step in the right direction. Support it, and then support the next bit of removal and the next and the next until it's all gone.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @06:27PM
Why do you think any further laws would follow? If either side gets their wish, they will actively kill any bill to change what would be the status quo following that.
You do make a very valid point that any loosening of 230 at all will lead to major obstacles for sites to overcome, but I think it's premature to speak of that. It's a real issue and one that would likely be reconciled long before this actually becomes a law. By contrast, I think the motivations of both sides are quite transparent and will be unlikely to change.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 08 2021, @06:20PM (1 child)
I love how destroying whole platforms is somehow NOT censorship.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @07:41PM
And how applying existing law to platforms would somehow be a new form of ideological suppression o.O
(Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday February 09 2021, @12:44AM
lol democrats want to demonetize hate speech for facebook, not censor hate speech comments . when facebook takes that comment, and puts it on people's feeds, where the user did not originally place it, facebook is now liable to get sued. when facebook takes and that's an illegal tort, collects cash for it, and then facebook (not the ad creator) puts it in your feed, now facebook is liable for presenting it. if a store sells mete, the store is liable -not just the floridaman who cooked the meth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @07:06AM
Weird how the typically rule-of-law conservatives are suddenly so concerned about making it possible to apply laws to the internet. Wonder what that is about?
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 08 2021, @05:48PM (1 child)
You need to pay attention more closely. You have never heard and will never hear me saying removal of section 230 protections would be anything but an utter catastrophe for free speech online.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @09:03PM
So all the times that we've discussed the idea of repealing 230 and you cried about platform censorship was really you saying we should not repeal 230 protections? I'm pretty sure we could dig up a post to illustrate your hypocrisy here, but I'm sure most people recall your pro-repeal position. I suspect you've simply had your head taken out of your ass by the deluge of rational people pointing out reality to you, and now you don't want to admit that your initial position was doomed to spectacular backfiring failure.
Now you want to keep 230 protections in place with no modifications? What about twitter, fb, gaggle censoring content from their platforms? No longer an issue for you? If you still don't like their censorship, got a suggestion for how to legally solve your problems?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Mojibake Tengu on Monday February 08 2021, @06:35AM (5 children)
No worries, the internet will recognize this as damage and will route around...
The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
(Score: 4, Touché) by EEMac on Monday February 08 2021, @06:43AM (3 children)
Just like Parler did. Oh, wait . . .
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @06:46AM
It's a winding route. Buy Dogecoin.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @09:16AM
Parler could have but they are lead by totally inept leaders. There are multiple services with less money and more heat that operate just fine even with vigilantes, law enforcement, and national governments actively out to get them.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Tork on Monday February 08 2021, @05:48PM
Well duh,ya gotta stick to the contracts you signed, too.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday February 08 2021, @03:45PM
... until it gets to your ISP
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @07:05AM (9 children)
No -- the original thought was to strip companies of the 230 protections if they engage in censorship because by doing so, they are no longer a mere communications service, they are acting like publishers.
This law is the reverse -- it seeks to create a liability if they DO NOT censor.
Democrats are neofascists.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @07:44AM (6 children)
Like the rest of the world, where you don't get protection if your speech is meant to be used for harrasment.
Common sense, really, "don't be a dick" and you'll be fine.
Now you're being a dick and potentially liable under existing jurisprudence [wikipedia.org] (see "group libel").
And, if this law passes, it will be your speech that would create TMB headaches more powerful than any Perl script could.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 08 2021, @05:51PM (1 child)
Dicks are the ones whose freedom of speech you should fight hardest for. I'm betting you have no idea why though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @09:07PM
We all know how much you love and respect the ACLU, but before you go spouting off about how wrong you are please make sure you have the details correct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions [wikipedia.org]
You don't have to agree with the rulings, but you are expected to abide by them until you can get them changed..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @12:02AM
Calling a political group names is exactly the type of speech that's protected. The whole point of freedom of speech is that we can criticize the action of groups. Now if I said something like "most democrats burn babies" that's different. But calling them some nebulous term like 'neofacist' is an opinion and opinions are protected.
Otherwise you can be liable for calling anyone you disagree with a conspiracy theorist. I should sue the mainstream media for continuously calling everyone they disagree with a white supremacist conspiracy theorist. Whenever they use those terms they should be sued, especially when they throw those terms around unnecessarily for unrelated reasons. Let's really examine each case that such a term is used by the mainstream media.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @02:52AM (1 child)
This shows the types of speech you would like prohibited by law and what your intent with Section 230 is. It's to stifle criticism you don't like. I do not think such speech should be prohibited.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @02:54AM
rather what your intent with changing section 230 is *
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @03:08AM
The rest of the world doesn't have the Bill of Rights. Irrelevant.
And before you start cumming all over yourself about how great Europe is, they spent the first half of last century gassing and blowing themselves up and committing genocide, and the Eastern Bloc (whose policies the left wishes to adopt), killed 10s of millions for thoughtcrime or being the wrong race.
So spare me the high horse shit.
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday February 08 2021, @01:32PM
Yes, exactly. Every provider has to chose to either censor the content and be liable or do not censor and be protected.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @03:48PM
Yeah, we know, but we had to get rid of the crazy person. Pretty cool how they created a hostage situation to get their power back, huh?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 08 2021, @07:11AM
Cyberstalking / US [wikipedia.org]
Already illegal for the perpetrator, seems that the platform may become liable too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Monday February 08 2021, @07:55AM (2 children)
It will do little but give distributed social networking and messaging services the leg up they need. e.g. even forums like soylent can gradually transition to the likes of social news aggregators [privacytools.io] should the need arise.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 08 2021, @05:54PM (1 child)
Nah, the distributed model for social networking has too much fail built in from the beginning.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday February 08 2021, @10:27PM
Between the Nazis' transition (back) from Parler to Gab and Musk's single tweet driving millions to switch from WhatsApp to Signal, I believe there's enough proof Mastodon can replace Facebook from both a technical and a social standpoint and it just needs an impetus to upset the inertia and provide it with room to grow. I'm not sure removing section 230 protections would be enough. But I know once they need to start moderating billions of users, they're bound to make mistakes and some of those mistakes will lead to posts similar to Musk's.
compiling...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 08 2021, @06:58AM (18 children)
If I had money to bet, I would bet money that the GOP will backtrack over their previous noise about removing 230 real hard now.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @07:07AM (6 children)
Of course they will -- this is a neofascist bill designed to increase censorship, not decrease it. I'm sure you will love it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @07:49AM (1 child)
Don't fart in an elevator, even if you think this is protected speech.
Do you think that's neofascist?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 08 2021, @05:55PM
Why, yes, it is. It's both absurd to make it literally illegal and absurd to use as an analogy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @08:10AM (3 children)
You think the Rapethuglicans are against neofascism?
From Ye Olde Wiki article on neofascism:
Every word of that perfectly describes the Rapethuglican party.
Feel free to point out where I'm wrong in my assessment of Rapethuglicans. Remember to cite your sources. Fаսх Νеԝѕ and other anti-factual neofascist propaganda outlets don't count.
(On another note, it seems the dipshit snowflake douchebag admins have fucked up the lame-ass filter again so we can't post lists anymore...)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @08:29AM
Of course, SN us free speech at the discretion of the benevolent overlords.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Monday February 08 2021, @09:31AM (1 child)
Let's just be real here.
The modern choice is do you want China-style "communism (aka capitalism with cruelty + censorship (tm))", or do you want The Fourth Reich?
Both choices are indescribably awful.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 09 2021, @01:03AM
Can we take a third option, the, as it were, Nordic track? Hold the lutefisk though; that may be one of perhaps a dozen items of food on this planet I will not eat.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by slinches on Monday February 08 2021, @04:36PM (10 children)
This is a bill that compels censorship to ensure there are no competing social media platforms that support free speech while the established players are still free to suppress political speech they don't like. In effect it would be the government protecting powerful companies in exchange for doing things that the government itself is expressly forbidden from doing. Please try to step back and think about what you're supporting here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @09:38PM (9 children)
Now there is some overhyped drama. It does open the door for such actions, however a few months ago for some strange reason you rightwingers were all about removing 230 protections. What a fucking joke you lot are.
Now that we've cleared up your hypocrisy, this change would hardly affect the little guys. The worst case scenario is that user accounts would be required, bans would be swift, and lawsuits would result in swift content removal. SN would either disable AC posting, limit ACs to user accounts so they could be banned for violations, or wait for lawsuits and just remove offending content. The site would carry on just fine
SN already disallows illegal content, and in point of fact gives leeway for morality based censorship, just a lovely little addition to the restrictions on freedom of speech around here. Though if you find some post to be "undesired and offtopic filth" you'll probably get modbanned by TMB, since he seems to be the final judge of what is allowed here on SN.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Tuesday February 09 2021, @04:52AM (8 children)
There's no hypocrisy here. I still think section 230 needs to be changed, but it should be done in a way that continues to protect those who provide a venue for free speech and removes protection for the portions of the site/service/platform that the company exercises editorial control over. Some thought does need to be put into how to establish standards that allow control of spam and managing topic based threads without rising to the level of editorial control, but it would likely need to fall to the courts to establish those bounds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @07:12AM (7 children)
The current reforms are about applying existing law to the internet. Did you know that there are limits on the 1st amendment?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @12:56PM
Existing law already applies to the Internet under section 230 as it currently stands.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 09 2021, @06:26PM (5 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @08:06PM (4 children)
Stop using their services. They have a right to moderate what content is on their networks, and the fact that many people are allowed to violated the TOS does not magically grant them immunity.
Social media is not the same thing as phone lines or ISP connections and they have never billed themselves as 100% pure free speech. You rightwing whiners need to STFU before your brains implode from the double standards and bad logic.
As you said for years, "build your own" and if you feel you are unfairly discriminated against a-la Parler getting the boot then file a lawsuit. Maybe some good legislation can come out of the whole mess.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2021, @01:51PM (3 children)
Things have already gotten pretty ridiculous. Why should we expect the systems that got us into this mess to pass good legislation?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2021, @03:17AM (2 children)
Sorry to burst your bubble but indeed I have thought about that. I have stated here repeatedly that a variety of services should be treated like land lines and prevented from not providing service barring illegal activity. Oddly enough you conservatives were the assholes saying "go build your own" when people didn't like your bullshit. Parler? Lol, you gotta be verified and pass purity tests last I heard. Even Reddit's r/conservative does the same shit.
So here I am a pink commie leftist social democrat saying those basic services should not be able to refuse clients based on ideological differences and you assholes are still whinging and promoting fascism cause of your feelz. Get fucked you typical conservative. I'll still support your rights, but I will never like disingenuous assholes who only support freedom when oppression starts infringing their own reality.
Frankly you fascist greedy fucks are the WORST, yet we real liberals keep defending your constitutional and human rights. Petulant children, the lot of you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 11 2021, @12:34PM
Then why haven't you brought it up before in this thread (or addressed my point about government manipulation)? As to whatever you claim you've repeatedly stated, perhaps that happened and would be relevant to this discussion, but without something more from you, like a link, we'll never know.
As to "you conservatives", you gloss over a huge difference. No "you conservative" was trying to censor your speech in the present means, say by creating terms of service that filtered out your viewpoint or cutting off financial services to your forum (perhaps with the exception of Wikileaks, which is the template for this sort of scheme). It's one thing to create a new forum that deliberately censors speech, and another to subvert an existing forum which was practicing liberal speech policies.
Here's my take on this mess. If it weren't for governments like the EU or China, these social media platforms wouldn't have even bothered to develop this censorship apparatus. If it weren't for the US taking down enemies of the state like Iran or Wikileaks by freezing their assets and blocking off access to financial systems, or the various governments intrusively monitoring financial transactions for money laundering and such, the financial systems we depend on wouldn't have the ability to cut off social media sites from funding. Some sort of infrastructure would be developed to filter out spam, but not take out users based on their ideology. But now that the tools have been developed, they're abusing them.
And now I'm to suppose that the recent coordinated banning of particular political speech and cutting off of social media platforms is some spontaneous sense of civil duty by these businesses who have never shown such in the past? (And particularly dubious given it's in response to a single protest?) What are they getting in return from the Biden administration?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 11 2021, @12:41PM
Things are working as you wanted. Why are you whinging about it? Sorry, but if basic services are unable to refuse clients based on ideological differences, then there will be some fascists using the services. It's by design.
Well, that's most people, not just whatever you think fascists are. Support for freedom is situational. Deal with it.
My view is that I'll take allies wherever I can find them to get abusive and oppressive laws reversed. That's more important than the mild hypocrisy you complain about above.