SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Democrats want a truce with Section 230 supporters:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says apps and websites aren't legally liable for third-party content, has inspired a lot of overheated rhetoric in Congress. Republicans like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) have successfully framed the rule as a "gift to Big Tech" that enables social media censorship. While Democrats have very different critiques, some have embraced a similar fire-and-brimstone tone with the bipartisan EARN IT Act. But a Senate subcommittee tried to reset that narrative today with a hearing for the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency (PACT) Act, a similarly bipartisan attempt at a more nuanced Section 230 amendment. While the hearing didn't address all of the PACT Act's very real flaws, it presented the bill as an option for Section 230 defenders who still want a say in potential reforms.
[...] Still, Section 230 has been at the forefront of US politics for years, and some kind of change looks increasingly likely. If that's true, then particularly after today's hearing, a revised version of the PACT Act looks like the clearest existing option to preserve important parts of the law without dismissing calls for reform. And hashing out those specifics may prove more important than focusing on the policy's most hyperbolic critics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @04:39PM (8 children)
That's not a very nuanced view. In fact, it's much less nuanced than even Section 230.
And don't forget that these are *private* organizations, not the government.
What's more, users have a *contract* with these corporations. Usually it's referred to as "Terms of Service (TOS)."
I'm not going to go and look it up for you, but in the language of each TOS you will find something along the lines of:
By posting on our site, you grant <corporation> a free, perpetual, non-exclusive license to the content posted. <corporation> may use and/or display such information as it deems appropriate
And then you'll see something like this:
<corporation> reserves the right to modify or remove such content it determines, at its sole discretion, violates our policies as defined, but not limited to, in these terms of service.
Such language gives these corporations wide latitude in what may or may not be posted on their site. Section 230 merely provides an additional level of protection to those corporations when they exercise their rights under the *contract* users have entered into with each corporation.
As such, your view doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given that the First Amendment *does not apply to private parties*, only to the government.
And I'll say it again, users have entered into a legally binding *contract* with these corporations, and under that contract, those users agree to penalties from warnings or having posts taken down, up to and including getting kicked off the site if the corporation decides you've violated the terms of the contract. Language that supports that *also* appears in such TOS'.
I suggest you educate yourself. Or not. That's up to you.
N.B.: IANAL
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:16PM (7 children)
When said corporations purchase laws to their benefit and to the detriment of the people, why do we consider them "private" parties with respect to government? All you describe here is a massive loophole -- same one used to destroy the 4A via the third party doctrine. Your proposition is a nightmare for any semblance of civil liberties continuing to exist -- it's nothing but a system designed for abuse.
Secondly, there's nothing stopping Congress from limiting corporations from behaving in certain ways -- or do you want to let companies decide who to hire and fire or serve to be based on race, religion, etc.? Because when you argue above, you are arguing for that. It's all the same thing -- it's an argument that corps should be free of all regulation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:16PM (3 children)
I said nothing even approaching that.
I merely pointed out (perhaps a bit verbosely) that:
1. The First Amendment applies to *government* action. Full stop;
2. U.S. contract law is enforceable in the United States. If someone is dumb enough to enter in a lopsided contract, that's on them.
Anything else is just you talking about what you *think* I said or believe. And I'm here to tell you that you're wrong.
Have a nice day!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @12:08AM (2 children)
When a part of government outsources the action to a
catspaw"private company", the full stop is coming to the Constitution unless the practice is stopped first. When someone outsources insider trading, both parties are liable; why should outsourcing Constitutional violations be freely doable?(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @01:40AM (1 child)
Which part of the government outsourced what "action" to which company?
This ought to be amusing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2020, @01:44AM
While acting clinically stupid does suit your ilk, it is not amusing due to absolute lack of variety.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2020, @09:21PM (2 children)
You do realize that the CDA and its section 230 [wikipedia.org] was enacted in 1996 right?
And you are aware that Facebook was founded in 2004 and Twitter in 2006, right?
Corporations "buying" laws that were enacted a decade before they existed, huh? If true, that would be a neat trick. But it's not, so it isn't.
You're talking out of your ass.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Friday July 31 2020, @02:48AM (1 child)
https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/11/17/fixed-fortunes-biggest-corporate-political-interests-spend-billions-get-trillions/ [sunlightfoundation.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @03:37AM
Which is definitely fucked up. I agree.
Getting the money out of our political system is an important (if not the most important, certainly in the top three) step toward curbing the legalized bribery called "lobbying."
But it still doesn't mean that corporations (Jack Dorsey was 20, and Zuckerberg was 12 when the CDA became law) "bought" laws a decade before they were founded.
The discussion and debate around the CDA is part of the Congressional Record, not to mention the extensive press coverage of that debate, so you *could* actually get a clue.
But I won't hold my breath.