SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
US Senate to issue subpoenas for Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Sundar Pichai:
The US Senate's Commerce committee on Thursday voted unanimously on a bipartisan basis to issue subpoenas to Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Google's Sundar Pichai, as Congress considers changes to liability protections granted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The three tech CEOs would appear before the committee as witnesses, but the date of the hearing hasn't been determined.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, from Washington and the leading Democrat on the committee, initially opposed the subpoena, which had been introduced by Chairman Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi. But Cantwell changed her position after Republicans included language in the subpoena regarding privacy and "media domination."
"There is a lot we want to talk to tech platforms about, like privacy and anti-competitive media practices," she said in a statement. "I thank the Chairman for broadening the subpoena to cover these issues."
She went on to say that "Section 230 deserves a serious thoughtful discussion. But the hearing should not be used to try to have a chilling effect on social media platforms who are taking down false COVID information or hate speech."
Previously:
DOJ Unveils Trump Administration's Legislation to Reform Tech's Legal Liability Shield
Democrats Want a Truce With Section 230 Supporters
US Senate Panel OK's EARN IT Act
DOJ Proposes Rolling Back Protections for Tech Platforms Acting like Publishers
U.S. EARN IT Act Could Discourage Adoption of End-to-End Encryption
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - 20 Years of Protecting Intermediaries
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2020, @02:54AM (1 child)
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything even vaguely like that.
I didn't say anything even close to that either.
But you know that. I'll clarify anyway.
The founders of Discord *own* the company. It is their *business* (company).
It's not *your* business (company) (or Slate's). As such, you (or Slate) don't get to *set policy* for Discord, as neither you (nor Slate) *own* the business.
You or Slate or anyone else can (and I support your right to do so) say just about anything you want about Discord, it's policies or just about anything or anyone else. Go ahead and knock yourself out, and more power to you.
Are you're arguing (a point you ignored in my earlier post) that *you* (or anyone else) has the right to have their speech *hosted* on the private property of others, without any input from the owners? Are you?
If you are, and *you* can force Discord to host speech it doesn't wish to host, then *I* can come over to your house and have my Goatse marathon in your living room or put up naked photos of Mitch McConnell on your lawn and you have no say about it.
Is that your assertion?
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Friday October 09 2020, @08:09AM
Well, you dragged this thread along for days and twice preached about the sacred right of private companies to censor as much as they want, despite the thread never being about that.
Thanks, I will.
If it had been, I would have said so, which I didn't. Go back and read the first post, it was only two sentences long.