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: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday July 30 2020, @08:37PM (5 children)
In typical fashion they also don't consider what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.
Imagine a site like Conservapedia or Parler being legally liable for objectionable 3rd party content on it's site! Oh my! Content they didn't create, but merely didn't detect.
Section 230 should be about protecting every site from liability of 3rd party content. Regardless of whether that site has a viewpoint or not.
For example, even Fox News, shouldn't be liable for 3rd party content, even if Fox News has a viewpoint. Ditto for CNN. Or any other site.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday July 30 2020, @10:29PM
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect...
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 31 2020, @12:30AM (3 children)
They don't believe the shoe ever will *be* on the other foot and they intend not to let that eventuality ever come to pass. The GOP has gone full scorched-earth: either they keep "winning" or they burn it all down. Nihilistic maniacs, the lot of them.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @04:54AM (2 children)
No worries, there won't be anything left for the GOP to burn once the libtards are done rioting and committing arson.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @11:28AM (1 child)
Libtards? Don't you mean marxist socialist fascist anarchists?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @12:55PM
Clippy: "Looks like you're trying to spell 'right wing infiltrators and agitators.' Would you like help with that?"