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: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 08 2021, @05:59PM (5 children)
You reckon all sites that allow comments should be held liable for every stupid comment made on their site? I'm sure as fuck not going to read all of the ones on this site and we have one particular douchenozle that would absolutely post things to get us sued the day it went into effect. So that means right from the start that SN has no alternative but to relocate if this passes.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @09:14PM (4 children)
You're not interested in following US law? Should some terrorist cell be allowed to openly plan their attacks via AC comments here on SN? Would you be unable to remove such posts due to the frozen peaches?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @11:07PM (2 children)
Better hypothetical might be people linking wswswsws should ICFI be declared a terrorist organization. Then we will see how much the buzztard is committed to the freezer peach.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 09 2021, @01:15AM (1 child)
He was never committed. Let's not be naive here: like every other sociopath he'll turn the letter of the law against the spirit of the law at every possible opportunity.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday February 09 2021, @06:32PM
Are you really going to claim that Buzz's hypocrisy is that important to you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2021, @11:52PM
No changes to section 230 are needed to make Soylentnews liable if they don't reasonably remove terrorist related content. The establishment needs to stop spreading the lies.