SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Runaway1956 (2926)
(email not shown publicly)
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
Howard wrote “that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
Journal of Runaway1956 (2926)
EXCLUSIVE: Congress Enlists GAO for “Domestic Extremist” Study on Social Media and Gaming Platforms
June 30, 2023Gab News can exclusively report that members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security have requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examine the utilization of social media and gaming platforms by “domestic extremists.”
Earlier this week Gab received an email from the GAO asking us to take part in the study and provide information on our business and users. Gab will not be participating in this study and will not be providing any information to the GAO. Our policies on First Amendment-protected speech are well known and are the industry standard for free speech online. We will not scapegoat our users or undermine the operation of our business to demonize normal Americans who have serious concerns with the direction of the nation and our leaders.
Our response to the GAO was as follows:
The most violent domestic extremist content we see on the Internet comes from the President of the United States, who is funding a meat grinder in Ukraine, cheering the burning of American cities in 2020, jailing peaceful protestors from January 6th, and openly advocating child genital mutilation from his Twitter account. We suggest you start there. Otherwise, we’re not interested in your study.
In the interest of transparency we will share the full request below so the public is aware of how their tax dollars are being spent.
Good afternoon,
We are reaching out from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO is an independent, non-partisan agency that evaluates federal programs for the U.S. Congress.
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security requested that GAO examine domestic violent extremists’ use of social media and gaming platforms. As part of our work, we are interested in hearing from a range of social media and gaming companies about their platforms, including community guidelines, and procedures for coordinating with external stakeholders if applicable.
We have selected Gab as part of our study. We would appreciate receiving your perspectives by responding to the questions below. Please note that we will not attribute information to any company representative by name in our public report. If we use information received from Gab in our report, we will send those statements to you for review, including to determine whether you would like each statement to appear as “representatives of Gab” or “representatives of a social media company.”
Your responses are valuable in helping us inform the U.S. Congress about online platforms’ approaches to handling violent extremist content, and we really appreciate your time.
Please provide written responses by replying to this email by Thursday, July 13.
1. Please provide an overview of Gab’s goals as a platform and how it generates its revenue (e.g. user fees, advertising, data sales).
2. In its Terms of Service, Gab states that its policy is “to allow all speech which is permitted by the First Amendment and to disallow all speech which is not permitted by the First Amendment,” however the terms do not explicitly mention any policies related to violent extremist content. To what extent does Gab have policies or take action to limit the spread of violent extremist content that may appear on the platform and is not illegal under U.S. law? How, if at all, does Gab define this type of content?
3. Other than Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) and policies related to child sexual abuse material, what laws and regulations, if any, does Gab consider in making decisions about domestic violent extremism that may appear on the platform?
4. What strategies and tools, if any, does Gab use to identify and mitigate domestic violent extremist content (e.g. automated or human reviews, user reporting)?
a. What redress mechanisms, if any, exist for users who believe their speech has been unfairly or inappropriately stifled?
5. What challenges, if any, does Gab face in identifying and mitigating domestic violent extremist content?
6. To the extent that Gab becomes aware of a potential threat on its platform, what actions, if any, does Gab take in response?
7. To what extent does Gab work with federal, state, or local agencies on issues related to domestic violent extremist content (e.g. notifying law enforcement of threats, partnerships or coordination, information-sharing)?
a. Please describe the nature of the coordination, if any, including which agencies you work with.
8. What, if anything, would you like federal agencies to know or do related to addressing domestic violent extremism on social media and gaming platforms?
Thank you in advance for assisting us with our work. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Regards,
GAO Social Media Study team
It seems pretty clear that the GAO has an interest in how legal speech is being quashed.
To what extent does Gab have policies or take action to limit the spread of violent extremist content that may appear on the platform and is not illegal under U.S. law? How, if at all, does Gab define this type of content?
That pretty clearly states that legal speech can be, or should be, or maybe even must be silenced.
Rest in peace, First Amendment.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01, @01:31AM (1 child)
Just another Runaway1956 journal clutching his white pearls of domestic terrorism. How dare the government ask questions?
Meanwhile you support government intervention to control the bodily autonomy of women. Satire is dead.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01, @07:24AM
We will kill Runaway1956, in self-defense, standing our Constitutional ground. Amazing how easily he is riled up by the Murdock media. Groomers? Reverse discrimination from Affirmative Action? The man is a moron. Can't understand how he ever held a job, or qualified for the Socialist programs of Medicare and Social Security. I have previously suggested that VA benefits be stopped for idiots advocating the overthrow of the Constitution. I know that would not effect a loosing of khallow, and his wingman side-gig, but it might give Runaway some pause, that he is on the wrong path, and we might have to kill him if he continues. (Dalek, you fucking moron! It says "might", not should! This is not a death threat, only a reciprocal. I am one of the 50 million, with more ammo and better aim. )
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01, @02:31AM
Title of this journal: A study on government control of the media.
Subject of this journal: Government questionnaire directed at social media and gaming companies.
$0.02 worth from this AC:
+ "social media" and "media" (traditional media like newspapers & TV) are very different animals
+ likewise, "government control" and "government questionnaire" have little to do with each other
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01, @02:56AM (4 children)
> Rest in peace, First Amendment.
This should be why you'd be against criminalizing the existence of books in a library.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01, @05:36AM (3 children)
P0rn in a children's library? You're okay with that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01, @06:24AM
(Score: 4, Interesting) by janrinok on Saturday July 01, @06:36AM (1 child)
Define porn first - some people seem to think that images that were once found in a Sears catalogue were porn!
Books containing legal material can be held in a children's library with controls on access, without banning everything for everyone. If a parent thinks their child is mature enough to read about reproduction in frogs then it is for the parents to decide whether their children can have access to such things. An if they can read about reproduction in frogs then what about other animals? Humans are just another animal in biological terms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 02, @02:54AM
When pressed on this he provided links that were graphic but not pornographic. I'll put it this way: he didn't find it posted on any porn site.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dalek on Saturday July 01, @03:11AM (11 children)
Disclosing the letter from the GAO was interesting and worthwhile. Gab's reply? Not so much. It is nothing more than a cringeworthy temper tantrum, and one that's really short-sighted.
The GAO's study wouldn't be taking place unless there was a valid legislative purpose. This letter probably means that Congress is considering a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. They're seeking information about current content moderation practices on social media platforms to understand the impact of repealing Section 230 and the potential impacts of doing so. It looks like they're trying to get details about current practices to inform a bill that would actually repeal Section 230, and perhaps how to go about replacing it.
Gab's temper tantrum is really short-sighted. Republicans have expressed interest in repealing Section 230, so this effort probably aligns with an effort that a lot of Gab's users would support.
The letter is insightful because it suggests that there really are efforts underway to repeal Section 230. Gab's reply, however, is downright embarrassing.
Despite your low-quality comment in my journal, I'll make sure my comment is actually relevant to the topic. You're wrong in reading into this letter like you did. It just looks like a study preceding an attempt to repeal Section 230, which again is something that Republicans support.
EXTERMINATE
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01, @03:49AM
You want to see a temper tantrum?
Just wait until this GAO questionnaire comes here, to SN.
Of course it will go to the owner(s) of record, NCommander et al ... (grinning)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 01, @11:09AM (9 children)
That is a preposterous assumption. You've assumed that every document ever signed by a member of the US legislature had a valid legislative purpose. You've assumed that every action taken by any committee of that legislative body had a valid legislative purpose. In point of fact, members and committees of congress are far more interested in posturing for, and catering to, those special interest groups that got them elected.
Actually, I rather admire people who stand up and tell congress to fuck off.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ypd28w0oDWY/UyztHWRDsjI/AAAAAAAAAmc/5OSN-hwAagk/s1600/eagle+mouse.jpg [blogspot.com]
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0Vlo3sTzswI/TVVTtc3b4VI/AAAAAAAAARw/_wEZLy7dUkI/s320/never+give+up.jpg [blogspot.com]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01, @02:32PM
Just shut up already you old farty nazi!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01, @11:37PM (1 child)
Indeed. I gather that you are A-OK with "violent extremism", just so long as it is the right kind of violent extremism aimed at the right kind of "undesirables". Is anybody surprised by this?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 02, @04:18AM
Got a whole busload of antifa heading for a homestead near you! Yes, about time the Left stood up the the state governments coddling Nazis and Neo-confederates and Runaway1956. Whole busload, maybe two. Over two thousand progressive Americans, who would like to have a word with you. I hope you are not scared, and that you do not react in a way that is, you know, illegal.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Sunday July 02, @12:29AM (5 children)
Repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a valid legislative purpose. Many members of Congress have stated their intent to do this. It's far more likely that Gab is concerned because they know full well that they're hosting large amounts of violent extremist content, and repealing Section 230 would make them liable for that content.
There's also a good reason why you wouldn't like this. You have a history of posting violent extremist content like your infamous comment about fifty million dead progressives [soylentnews.org] that includes a call to action. You wrote:
This is exactly the type of content Gab and other sites might have liability for if Section 230 was repealed. It's an incitement of violence, and content like this could get websites sued if there's an indication that a person read that content and acted on it.
EXTERMINATE
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 02, @05:03AM (3 children)
There are three routes that websites could follow after the termination of Section 230. They can rehome to another country, assuming Congress didn't add a long-arm provision. They can censor to an extreme that people can't even imagine anymore. They can get sued to oblivion by trolls for actual failure to censor or for perceived failure to censor.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Sunday July 02, @05:55AM (2 children)
I suspect that courts aren't going to look kindly upon obvious trolls. It might be an issue for a little while, but I can't imagine that judges will be tolerant of frivolous lawsuits. If nothing else, lawsuits filed by trolls would have the potential to be a huge burden for the court system, so judges will probably look to shut that down. If you make a good faith effort to moderate your website, I suspect that courts aren't going to want to award damages just because a malicious user posts violent extremist garbage. I could be wrong, but I suspect that's how things would likely play out.
While it might be a nuisance for some websites shortly after the hypothetical repeal of Section 230, I think courts will be eager to lay the smack down on troll lawsuits. Those lawsuits could very well run into problems with standing, meaning that not just anyone could sue a website, and they would have to prove injury because of the content. I think there might initially be a lot of lawsuits, but I don't think judges will want their courtrooms to become a free-for-all to sue websites over content posted by trolls.
Websites like Gab, Parler, Truth Social, and Bitchute might have a much bigger problem because they're perceived as welcoming that type of content with open arms. There's a difference between a malicious user uploading garbage and marketing your website as a safe space for extremist content. I think courts will also probably consider whether a website operator should have known about extremist content, meaning that they would probably consider the feasibility of moderation. However, I don't think courts will be nearly as sympathetic when the operators of a website go out of their way to make it clear that such content is tolerated on their platform. I think a platform like Gab has far more to worry about than your average website. It's going to be much harder to argue that they didn't know about extremist content when they market themselves as a safe space for extremist content.
It wouldn't surprise me if Gab realizes that the Republican desire to repeal Section 230 might come back to bite them in the ass. While I don't want to enable asinine lawsuits, I also have zero sympathy for a platform like Gab.
EXTERMINATE
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 02, @08:08AM (1 child)
The whole point of Section 230 is that moderation is all or nothing without it, thanks to Stratton Oakmont. And you don't have to prove damages for jurisdictions that recognize defamation per se, which includes Delaware. All your troll need to do is find one occasion where the moderators missed something or didn't act fast enough. And if that something doesn't exist, just provoke the right person or fire up your VPN and no one's the wiser. As much as judges hate vexatious litigators and barrators, there are plenty of people who make their living or moonlight as legal trolls (copyright, patent, ADA, defamation, etc.).
(Score: 1) by dalek on Sunday July 02, @10:48AM
The case you're referencing was decided by the New York Supreme Court, meaning that it doesn't establish precedent outside of New York. It was decided in 1995, and the internet has changed substantially since the time when that case was decided. This involved a single message board, whereas the scale of content moderation on many platforms today is massive. The precedent of the case you referenced is limited, and I suspect it would be rapidly overturned if Section 230 was repealed.
I also suspect that a straight repeal of Section 230 is fairly unlikely. I think it's much more likely that it would be replaced with something that imposes liability under some circumstances while also placing limits on how content can be moderated in some circumstances. It's very possible that large businesses (e.g., Meta and Google) would be regulated differently from anyone else. I'd be very surprised if Section 230 was outright repealed instead of being replaced or amended. I don't think it's clear what a replacement for Section 230 should look like, or how to simultaneously restrict content moderation while also making websites liable for third-party content in some cases. That might well be why Congress is trying to obtain information about current methods of content moderation. Replacing Section 230 in the current Congress will require some support from Democrats, and they're probably going to insist on some liability for platforms like Gab in exchange for imposing other limits on content moderation.
EXTERMINATE
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 06, @01:10PM
It's not the GAO's role to repeal Section 230. And we all have a valid concern about any violations of superior US law, like the First Amendment, that can follow repealing Section 230.
Sounds like Gab has a valid concern then.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01, @07:48AM
Is it just that Runaway is all frothy with Supremes, and has forgotten to restrict comments on his, um, thoughts? Or, does he actually invite and encourage our comments on his insanity? I go for the former, although it is not a good option. In this case, yet again, he does not link or cite the far right wing idiots that have gotten him all in a huff. I think it may be a ammosexual support group, or a bunch of white loosers who do not want to be replaced. But in any case, very far from reputable sources, and actually verging on the deplorable. Fucking hillbilly red-necked Supreme Court supporting ignorant morons.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01, @03:53PM (1 child)
They support fascism until it knocks on their door. Runaway loved himself some section 230 repeals because he thought it would help his ideological agenda. Then the GAO wants to research how a rightwing website moderates and it is full blown DA CLUBBERMINT IS SENSORING US!
The dumb is too much, all while the journal author champions fascism for schools, hospitals, and book readings.
What. A. Pathetic. Loser.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 03, @02:39PM
Repealing section 230 is a sword that cuts both ways.
If you eat an entire cake without cutting it, you technically only had one piece.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday July 03, @12:51AM
"It's fine when my tribe does it, but when people who don't believe what I believe do it, it's eeeeeeeeeeeevil!" Piss off and don't come back until you get some new material. There are Markov bots with a wider repertoire than yours.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 04, @09:42PM
Still here being a stupid nazi? Cool story bro, punch a nazi eh? Maybe slapping yer face a few times'll knock some sense into youz!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05, @11:04AM (2 children)
Finally found what was the origin of Runaway's foaming. Missouri. It's always Missouri.
Judge blocks U.S. officials from tech contacts in First Amendment case [washingtonpost.com]
Much like is happening on SoylentNews, surprise surprise!
O'Reilly? Cancelled, like Papa Bear, you say?
Deep State all up in Runaway's junk! Never thought I would see the day when so many stupid conservatives would be so put out about people telling them they were stupid for taking horse de-worming medicine. Neigh? Mr. Ed? Paul?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 06, @01:13PM
I guess we can't say that Trump never did anything good for you!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06, @08:49PM
And some people are mocking conservatives, again!
Trump Judge Effectively Names Himself President: Terry A. Doughty says he gets to decide who the FBI, DHS, HHS, and the Justice Department can talk to. [prospect.org]
Jist:
The zinger:
Trump Federal judge appointees are "the reliable band of right-wing email-forwarding uncles who happen to have been given lifetime tenure on the federal bench." Wow, truer words have never been written! Wonder what the Supreme Uncles (and Handmaiden) will decide this week?