Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections
101–110 of 195 posts
Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections
#102I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that Section 230 protections should come with some sort of obligation to allow free speech. However, the actual policy proposals for replacing Section 230 are all outright dystopian. Josh Hawley, in particular, is NOT a free speech advocate. His problem with Facebook/Tiwtter is perceived liberal bias, and the alternatives to Section 230 that he suggests are 100% about wrestling e…
The whole point of Section 230 is to allow digital communications services to moderate their platforms without incurring liability for the things their users say. If you want to stop the moderation, all you would need to do is completely repeal Section 230- as it no longer serves any purpose under such a system.
Without Section 230, if I host a unmoderated social network, could I face liability if one person libeled another using my website? My understanding was yes, but your comment suggests otherwise.
Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections
#103And this is all because the President got mad at Twitter on the right and the left always think more government is the answer. This is what happens when you get government involvement in tech.
Why isn't the market holding Facebook accountable for the numerous transgressions we've seen coming out of that company over the last several years? Because people don't understand or care how the money is made, which fundamentally undermines the argument that the market is always right. From broad, repeated invasions of online privacy to numerous scandals involving state-sponsored disinformation campaigns, Facebook…
My friend... Tucker Carlson was the most watched news anchor in all of America last week. It is apparent that a good portion of the population doesn't find Facebook's decision to allow free speech at all objectionable.
Have you considered that the reason why most people are okay with Facebook not punishing president Trump is because many people agree with him? Have you considered that -- facebook having more active users than twitter -- that facebook is more representative of the United states than your feelings?
Twitter is known to be mainly popular among the media, who -- shock and surprise -- don't like trump and lean liberal. Facebook is popular amongst the rest of us. Is it possible in your worldview that other people may not think like you?
Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections
#104Perhaps the most important line from the article:
> The Justice Department proposal is a legislative plan that would have to be adopted by Congress.
Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty certain that settlement admits no guilt.
If you bothered to read the articles I linked they include many other examples such as: >last year, in a Wisconsin case, a jury found a Milwaukee gun store liable for selling a gun to a 21-year-old customer
The liability springs from enabling a straw purchase the plaintiff alleges should have been obvious and therefore the sale should have been denied.
I imagine there is evidence (video, witnesses, etc.) that tend to indicate that the dealer knew or should have known he was facilitating a straw purchase.
Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
lawsuits and settlement are not legal liability, they are just sometimes cheaper and better PR to settle.
Read the articles: >in a Wisconsin case, a jury found a Milwaukee gun store liable for selling a gun to a 21-year-old customer...The gun was later used by an 18-year-old to shoot and critically wound two police officers, who were awarded damages by the jury. Jury verdict (legal liability) against the seller of the gun which was used in a murder by someone other than the person they sold it to. FYI: Walmart doesn't se…
The liability in these cases was related to alleged negligence related to facilitating straw purchases. And, in the PA case, possibly selling bullets to an underage buyer.
Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections
#107I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that Section 230 protections should come with some sort of obligation to allow free speech. However, the actual policy proposals for replacing Section 230 are all outright dystopian. Josh Hawley, in particular, is NOT a free speech advocate. His problem with Facebook/Tiwtter is perceived liberal bias, and the alternatives to Section 230 that he suggests are 100% about wrestling e…
Just change the wording to illegal speech instead of vague definition like indecent speech.
Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections
#108I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that Section 230 protections should come with some sort of obligation to allow free speech. However, the actual policy proposals for replacing Section 230 are all outright dystopian. Josh Hawley, in particular, is NOT a free speech advocate. His problem with Facebook/Tiwtter is perceived liberal bias, and the alternatives to Section 230 that he suggests are 100% about wrestling e…
I don't have a good proposal really, but I agree that "politically appointed board" is exactly the worst thing we could have. That's the point where true free speech advocates will have suffered total defeat.
"Sure I believe in free speech, but you can't let that guy say those things."
Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections
#109Be careful of what you ask for. Section 230 exists because the courts punished Prodigy because they tried to moderate their forums but did it imperfectly, but didn't punish CompuServe because they let anything go. The idea is to allow imperfect moderation in addition to both zero and perfect moderation. The internet without section 230 isn't a bastion of internet freedom. It's 4chan and 8chan. It's a shithole.
[flagged]
> Every single bad thing we've dealt with since 2010 has been started or exacerbated
I think this is a difficult to argue claim because exacerbated could be defined so broadly as to fit any post on social media.
> 4chan is bad, but go to Twitter's company page and look at the organizations they are working with on their policies. Every single one is a progressive, special interest group.
And yet Twitter has struggled with whether to ban actual, self-avowed neo-Nazis. No, not the ones that users call Nazis, but the folks who call themselves that. If Twitter and other social media are too alike to 4chan, it seems to me they have a lot further to go than just put some "progressive special interest groups" on their policy boards.
JK Rowling is welcome to air her views on the platform and users are able to express their disdain. That's just culture, y'know?
Re: Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections
#110I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that Section 230 protections should come with some sort of obligation to allow free speech. However, the actual policy proposals for replacing Section 230 are all outright dystopian. Josh Hawley, in particular, is NOT a free speech advocate. His problem with Facebook/Tiwtter is perceived liberal bias, and the alternatives to Section 230 that he suggests are 100% about wrestling e…
[flagged]