SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the government-should-govern-moderation-policies dept.
Greene offers bill to abolish Section 230
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) on Thursday is introducing a bill to abolish Section 230 — the law the protects online platforms from liability — on the heels of Twitter accepting Elon Musk's offer to buy the company and take it private.
Greene's bill would eliminate the law making online platforms not liable for content posted by third parties and replace it with a provision to require "reasonable, non-discriminatory access to online communications platforms" through a "common carrier" framework that Greene compared to airlines or package delivery services.
Republicans have long claimed that social media platforms have an anti-conservative bias, pointing to tweets that have been taken down and the removal of entire feeds from networks.
[....] Titled the 21st Century FREE Speech Act, Greene's measure will serve as the House version of a Senate bill sponsored by Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.).
To combat the alleged bias against conservatives, it would prevent online communications platforms from exerting "undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, political or religious group or affiliation, or locality" and would provide consumers a mechanism to sue for violations.
Should any platform be liable for someone else's speech? Even if they engage in moderation?
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2022, @08:26PM (6 children)
I think they should become liable the second they start moderating.
Public spaces, bars, ... where speech is had, the gov takes responsibility and gives possible victims of said speech possibilities for recourse. The gov can go after speakers of some "criminal" speech directly as well.
So, on a social platform that just provides space to talk without moderating, they shouldn't have liability. When you make active decisions limiting/altering speech, you take on some liability (also for suppressing speech you shouldn't have suppressed)
This sounds simple, but the gov believes that "criminal speech" that is not limited to a bar but to a giant audience is more problematic. They also face their own limitations that speech coming from outside their borders may not be at all criminal. So, they want someone else to do their job. Granted the platforms have a better position, but it would be nicer that they provide transparent tools the gov can use themselves with the correct warrants. (transparent: the public knows what was censored and why)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday April 29 2022, @09:49PM (5 children)
I disagree.
You should be able to moderate on your property. Like Fox News does. Like CNN does. You should not be liable for someone else's speech even if you do moderate.
That rule should apply to all platforms. Even platforms that support your favorite GOP or QAnon or whatever viewpoint.
While Republicans can get over Trump's sexual assaults, affairs, and vulgarity; they cannot get over Obama being black.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 29 2022, @10:19PM (2 children)
Like SoylentNews did when it moderated the doxxing of Runaway...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 30 2022, @02:05AM (1 child)
You don't have to even get that far. The definition of moderation includes providing tools to users that affect the visibility of posts. The mod system alone will either have to go or the staff will have to be more proactive with the collateral censorship.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 30 2022, @02:18PM
Proactive isn't enough. France is currently prosecuting someone for not deleting other people's posts off of their Facebook wall fast enough for the government's liking. (Hint: There is no such thing as fast enough) The only option is to mod each and every post before it can be shown, which is completely nuts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 30 2022, @09:12AM (1 child)
Keep your property closed to the public and do whatever you wish there.
When said property exists TO be in the public eye, AND you moderate "this" and not "that", you SHOULD be fully liable for "that". So-called "pirate sites" get prosecuted for much less.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 30 2022, @10:35PM
Can't wait for your next open house ;-D