DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
justice.gov
DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
1–10 of 392 posts
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#2The barely concealed subtext here seems to be that this is not at all about monopolies, and is really about forcing Google to return search results favorable to conservative politicians and ideologies.
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#3This is probably the most impactful tech news on HN right now, but of course it's rated lower than some story on Adobe's plans to mess up PDF.
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#4> ... hold online platforms accountable both when they unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online.
If these proposed changes are enacted, I await the catch-22 where an "online platform" is sued in relation to the same content; first where they "censored" something and then had to put it back online, and second as "knowingly facilitating criminal activity" because it's online.
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#5The barely concealed subtext here seems to be that this is not at all about monopolies, and is really about forcing Google to return search results favorable to conservative politicians and ideologies.
Of course it is. Conservatives have raced so quickly to the right that they've outrun the Overton Window. So rather than snap back, they're trying to push Big Tech to accelerate the movement of the window.
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#6As usual for Section 230 stuff, Mike Mansick at Techdirt has the thoughtful, sourced analysis - including all the players and a history of their past actions
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200921/22345845352/trump...
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#7I think that the title is correct but it is not very descriptive of what it is about for people having a look at it.
Tldr quote from it:
"We therefore urge Congress to make these necessary reforms to Section 230 and begin to hold online platforms accountable both when they unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online.”
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#8> ... hold online platforms accountable both when they unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online. If these proposed changes are enacted, I await the catch-22 where an "online platform" is sued in relation to the same content; first where they "censored" something and then had to put it back online, and second as "knowingly facilitating criminal activity" because it's online.
If Fox News is streaming over YouTube TV, is it an online service that can be sued for moderating content in bad faith? Who gets sued? Fox News, YouTube TV, my ISP?
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#9I think that’s fine to ask social medias to choose between being a publisher or a platform.
It’s perfectly fine to push your point of view online as it’s protected by the first. But you should bare consequences for the cases not protected by the first.
Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
#10> ... hold online platforms accountable both when they unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online. If these proposed changes are enacted, I await the catch-22 where an "online platform" is sued in relation to the same content; first where they "censored" something and then had to put it back online, and second as "knowingly facilitating criminal activity" because it's online.
If Fox News is streaming over YouTube TV, is it an online service that can be sued for moderating content in bad faith? Who gets sued? Fox News, YouTube TV, my ISP?
Everyone.