Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Thursday July 30 2020, @02:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the change-is-in-the-wind dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @03:55AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @03:55AM (#1029100)

    Without addressing this issue we are on course for a social credit system implemented by Google and Facebook. They are private and can do anything they want. Cutting off your access to participate in society is just small cost to bear so that they can maintain their profits.

    Google and Facebook and Twitter are *not* society. They're just websites.

    They are completely superfluous and unnecessary. That many people flock to those websites doesn't make them the *entirety* of culture/society.

    Maybe read a book or go to a museum or a concert instead. I guarantee you'll be much happier for it.

    I ignore all that garbage and I certainly am.

    And I'm currently reading Ian Banks' Culture Series [wikipedia.org] myself. It's a little uneven, but an interesting fictional universe. Or John D. McDonald's Travis McGee novels. Or Spengler's "Decline of the West." Or watch a movie. Or any of tens of millions of other things you could be doing instead of either inifinitely scrolling your FB/Twitter/Instagram/whatever feed, or whinging about how much that sucks. Get a life.

    Doing that is much more enjoyable than looking at photos of some asshole's dinner or reading some in[s]ane screed about how Bill Gates wants to anally probe you and implant a tracking device in you.

    Get a grip.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @01:50PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @01:50PM (#1029278)

    People are losing their jobs from social media campaigns. People have lost access to their lines of credit and bank accounts from social media campaigns.

    It doesn't matter if you are on those platforms or not anymore because the mob is on them. The social media lynch mob uses them to coerce companies to stop any business with an unperson.

    Facebook already collects information and has profiles for people not on their accounts. I wouldn't be surprised if google did something similar. They have already developed a social credit system for China. I don't find it a stretch to think that big companies and bank would outsource "safe" people searches and deny business with unpeople.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @04:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2020, @04:08PM (#1029341)

      It doesn't matter if you are on those platforms or not anymore because the mob is on them.

      Back in the early '90s, the company I worked for connected their email system to the Internet. When rolling this out, a memo was sent to employees about their policies WRT using external email.

      The memo suggested (paraphrasing) that one should *not* put anything in an email that "...you wouldn't want to see on the front page of your local newspaper."

      That was good advice then, and it's even better advice (and more important for "social media" posts) now.

      Freedom of speech means that the *government* isn't allowed to retaliate against you for the things you say. That does *not* apply to individuals or private organizations.

      Trying to get someone fired because they said something you don't like, outside of the context of their job is a dick move.

      And while it's nasty and inappropriate, it's not a crime. If you think it should be, write your congressman.

      Alternatively, take a page from those assholes and build support for getting *them* fired for being assholes.

      The government may not censor your speech (although that's not absolute -- nor should it be -- either) or retaliate against you for your speech. In most other contexts (at least in the US), those restrictions do not apply.

      That's the law. If you don't like it, work to get it changed.

      What's more, there have *always* been assholes and busybodies (look up 'poison pen' letters for an example). In fact, I'm pretty sure that's been going on at least since we learned to speak.

      The only difference is that instead of only your town or neighborhood potentially reacting to what you say, just about everyone can do so.

      Is it right? I don't think so. But any *legal* mechanism that might restrict the assholes (a tiny minority of us) from speaking out also restricts the rest of us. And that's something I strongly oppose.

      If you want freedom of expression to be a real thing, even malicious, nasty scumbags have to be allowed to speak too.

      Heinlein, as usual, had useful things to say about this:
      https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/135412-the-correct-way-to-punctuate-a-sentence-that-states-of [goodreads.com]

      The correct way to punctuate a sentence that states: "Of course it is none of my business, but -- " is to place a period after the word "but." Don't use excessive force in supplying such a moron with a period. Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about.

      But that's not enough in this context. The other side of the coin is:
      https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3264-i-am-free-no-matter-what-rules-surround-me-if [goodreads.com]

      I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.[emphasis added]