DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation • Hacker News Board

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#21

Post by slowmovintarget » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 6:44 PM UTC

gabereiser wrote: post #14

jagged-chisel wrote: post #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.

I was just about to say... > when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online. Does this include the criminal misinformation campaigns the GOP love to quote as free speech? What justifies criminality? And WTF is the justice department doing writing laws? That’s outside their jurisdiction. Congress writes laws. But I guess when your political party owns congress, the White House, and the justice department... y…

They are proposing legislation. Congress would have to adopt it into a bill. Doesn't mean it's going to happen, or that it will pass. But anyone can write a letter to Congress and propose legislation. You and I would likely get a nice pat on the head and an auto-signed letter, but we can do it.

The DoJ is on step 1: https://www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-made They simply have a louder podium to announce their idea.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#22

Post by Waterluvian » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 6:44 PM UTC

hartator wrote: post #9

I 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.

1A protects you from the government. It has no relevance to free speech among persons and corporations.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#23

Post by curt15 » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

jagged-chisel wrote: post #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.

What law separates "lawful" from "unlawful" censorship?

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#24

Post by analyte123 » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

The changes to the existing “Good Samaritan” section basically do what they said they were going to do: change it so that the section about providers not being publishers and the section about liability for blocking are independent, and clarify what “good faith” in blocking means. Basically the standard for civil immunity is slightly higher for blocking content than providing content. This is weird and still a big change by itself, but it is a reasonable topic for debate, I think.

The new ridiculously named “Bad Samaritan” section is a disaster that wipes out the point of the “Good Samaritan” section and is basically a combination of the mandatory CSA reporting law and SESTA/FOSTA for all federal and state laws. It’s so bad it almost seems like a poison pill.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#25

Post by joshuamorton » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

slowmovintarget wrote: post #11

iron0013 wrote: post #2

The 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.

The legislation asks them to take their finger off the scales, not put it on the other side. > The current interpretations of Section 230 have enabled online platforms to hide behind the immunity to censor lawful speech in bad faith and is inconsistent with their own terms of service. To remedy this, the department’s legislative proposal revises and clarifies the existing language of Section 230 and replaces vague te…

> The legislation asks them to take their finger off the scales

What do you mean? In what way is the DOJ's finger on the scale? Either facebook is free to manage itself as it sees fit, or it isn't. But if it isn't, then that's the finger being on the scale. That's the government controlling facebook. If you want the government controlling facebook's editorial powers, that's all well and good, but it's putting its finger on the scales.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#26

Post by syspec » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

If they would like to investigate social media for anti-conservative bias, does that mean it'd be okay for attorney general of other states to investigate Fox News for bias, or Breitbart? Of course not.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#27

Post by DoofusOfDeath » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

Spartan-S63 wrote: post #5

iron0013 wrote: post #2

The 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.

> Conservatives have raced so quickly to the right ...

I'd like to suggest that we use care with the term "conservative". Is it possible that the parent post conflates "conservative" with "Republican"?

I'm no authority on the U.S. Republic party, but I know it's sometimes said that that party has shifted hard to "the right". I could believe that's true, which would line up with the parent post.

However, some of my own political views would be considered "conservative" in the traditional sense, and I don't think they've undergone a hard shift to the right.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#28

Post by coffeefirst » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

matthewdgreen wrote: post #3

This 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.

Not really. They can ask congress nicely but unless both the house and senate agree to pick it up, it's just another dumb letter on fancy stationary.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#29

Post by hartator » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

buhhh wrote: post #15

hartator wrote: post #9

I 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.

I don't think you understand the first amendment.

Enlight us.

For example, calling for the murders of specific people based on their political views or races don’t fall under the first. And social medias allow the spread of some of these messages with no consequences at the moment.

Re: DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

#30

Post by jagged-chisel » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

curt15 wrote: post #23

jagged-chisel wrote: post #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.

What law separates "lawful" from "unlawful" censorship?

Indeed.