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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Friday July 31 2020, @03:30PM

    by Immerman (3985) on Friday July 31 2020, @03:30PM (#1029325)

    However, having completely read your link, they don't even discuss the topic of voluntary social media censorship of users, and I think for good reason.

    Yes, the 14th Amendment means that the 1st Amendment applies to state governments as well as the federal, but that's not an issue as no governments are involved.

    And yes, private individuals can't use the courts, and thus government power, to censor others (in theory anyway - in practice SLAPP suits are actually quite effective against most people.) But that's also not an issue, as there are no courts or government power involved when social media sites censor someone.

    The thing about social media censorship is that they aren't actually trying to stop someone from spreading a message - they're just declining to be an active participant in that spread. "You want to say X, go right ahead - somewhere else. We won't be your megaphone" As is their right - they can't compel you to silence, but neither can you compel them to spread your message for you. Just as you can't compel a radio station to broadcast your message for you, or a newspaper to print it.

    And 230 specifically grants sites the right to moderate as they see fit, without doing so being considered an editorial act that would make them liable for the posts they allow.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3