I'm generally fairly hesitant about restricting 230 protection, but removing it for paid content, such as ads, makes a lot of sense to me.
The failure though is the government isn't accounting for content next to ads. Ad companies are likely to keep user generated content that drives good ad revenue, even if it's also harmful. This is a start, but the solution is to revoke 230 entirely.
Presumably this would lead to this site shutting down.
Too many people do not understand the First Amendment (1A). In case you have not reviewed the 1A recently, please read this carefully: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment > The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise…
Theory and practice being quite different, I give you the precocious California youth from Pruneyard[0]. They won their 1A case against a private company that was a sort of platform for businesses (a shopping mall) not entirely unlike, in essence, the social media platforms of today, before SCOTUS 9-0.
>The bill would make it clear that Section 230, [...] does not apply to ads or other paid content seems reasonable >does not impair the enforcement of civil rights laws what types of civil rights abuses were protected by section 230? I'm under the impression that saying/posting racial slurs isn't illegal. > and does not bar wrongful-death actions. what's the current bar for suing an establishment for wrongful death?…
the "meet at a bar to plot a murder" metaphor isn't at all how the the tech companies faciliate these things. Its more like if the group meets at a bar, and exclusively communicated through with each other through the bartender. In that case, would the bartender have an obligation to tell law enforcement that a group at the bar was planning a murder? I think so.
I think "communicating through the barkeeper" makes the barkeeper's involvement sound much more intentional than it actually would be. It's more like if a group regularly gathered at the bar, using the barkeeper's space and supplies, and planned a murder.
The barkeeper might have a responsibility to listen in to the conversation and report if they are planning a crime, and the group is using the barkeeper's space to organize, but it's not like the barkeeper ever agreed for that specific group to use their space.
Good. It is bizarre to me that one could post literal death threats online endlessly without fear of any consquences, yet if you were to yell the same threats in a public location, the police would be summoned. My main concern would be that any regulations that punish companies for allowing threatening material on their site punish in proportion to the audience who was exposed to it. Big fines for big tech, tiny fine…
Death threats posted online are just as illegal as if they are yelled in public. Police (FBI) investigate and prosecute lots of death threats and there’s lots of examples of people who thought they were anonymous being found and prosecuted for criminal threat. [0]
So I suppose it’s regulated in that it’s criminal and criminal actions are prohibited.
I’m not sure how you would fine Twitter because one of its users made a death threat, not how you would fine a McDonald’s because someone in their restaurant yelled a death threat. Or a megaphone manufacturer, etc etc.
>The bill would make it clear that Section 230, [...] does not apply to ads or other paid content seems reasonable >does not impair the enforcement of civil rights laws what types of civil rights abuses were protected by section 230? I'm under the impression that saying/posting racial slurs isn't illegal. > and does not bar wrongful-death actions. what's the current bar for suing an establishment for wrongful death?…
the "meet at a bar to plot a murder" metaphor isn't at all how the the tech companies faciliate these things. Its more like if the group meets at a bar, and exclusively communicated through with each other through the bartender. In that case, would the bartender have an obligation to tell law enforcement that a group at the bar was planning a murder? I think so.
>The bill would make it clear that Section 230, [...] does not apply to ads or other paid content seems reasonable >does not impair the enforcement of civil rights laws what types of civil rights abuses were protected by section 230? I'm under the impression that saying/posting racial slurs isn't illegal. > and does not bar wrongful-death actions. what's the current bar for suing an establishment for wrongful death?…
the "meet at a bar to plot a murder" metaphor isn't at all how the the tech companies faciliate these things. Its more like if the group meets at a bar, and exclusively communicated through with each other through the bartender. In that case, would the bartender have an obligation to tell law enforcement that a group at the bar was planning a murder? I think so.
That example also fails. Without a very high degree of oversight of content, Twitter, Facebook, et al. are often unaware of what's actually posted. Not in the sense that it's unknowable, but that the technical systems facilitating the communication are just that, technical systems. They are not people. A go-between who is both aware of the messages and capable of comprehending them (sent in the clear) can easily be argued to be part of the conspiracy. But a go-between who is incapable of comprehending the messages has a valid defense (especially if the vast majority of the things they sit between are legal communications and not criminal conspiracies). Twitter et al. are capable of knowing, but due to the scope of their systems the communication often has to be obvious or brought to their attention for them to become aware of it in order to to react appropriately.
Bill Clinton said in 2000 that limiting Internet is like nailing jello to the wall. Now, not only China managed to do so, even the US starts trying to nail the jello as well.
WashPo has a more detailed article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/04/technolog... Correction as of 12:57 pm EST: Based on a comment below, I see now that the link above is talking about a different bill from Senator Klobuchar with an anti-trust focus. She's been busy.
I don't think this is the same bill.
Thanks for the correction. Here is the correct bill:
>The bill would make it clear that Section 230, [...] does not apply to ads or other paid content seems reasonable >does not impair the enforcement of civil rights laws what types of civil rights abuses were protected by section 230? I'm under the impression that saying/posting racial slurs isn't illegal. > and does not bar wrongful-death actions. what's the current bar for suing an establishment for wrongful death?…
I think a more apt metaphor would be, If a bunch of radicals meet at a bar, repeatedly and and loudly state their intention to murder someone, loud enough for all the employees to know, and they also get into bar fights with the people they talk about murdering...would the bar owner & employees be responsible for not intervening? For not reporting them to the police and banning them from the establishment?