Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or they could stop editorializing their content.
But the children!
That's a different piece of legislation
Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
161–170 of 220 posts
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#162>The draft order would push the Federal Communications Commission to issue rules clarifying the issue, potentially allowing users to sue over takedowns if they were inconsistent with companies’ terms of service, did not provide enough notice or meet other suggested criteria.
I find this interesting and I'm not sure where I stand here.
On the one hand I'm not happy about an executive order that limits liability for online platforms. The onus for posts being on the user, protecting the platform, is a core part of running any service. On the other hand, this doesn't seem like it would make platforms liable for content that users post, instead it's liability for the content that the platforms choose to _remove_. I've never considered that angle before.
Would it be akin to compelled speech on the part of the platform, or does it make them more like common carriers that can't pick and choose who gets access?
I suppose the biggest risk here would something along the lines of having bad actors post content that follows the rules for a site, but is also obviously against the spirit of the site, causing the posts to be removed and opening the site to a lawsuit?
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#163Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think bringing back the CompuServe model would be a good thing. I remember the discussions being unusually free at the time, but was not aware that there was legal reasoning that enforced that freedom.
There's nothing prohibiting you from running a forum on the CompuServe model today - Section 230 permits a forum operator to moderate but does not require them to do so. There are less-moderated forums out there, but they see less popular in the free market. I think the main argument for Section 230 is it made no sense to legally require the CompuServe model - both CompuServe and Prodigy should have been free to oper…
It may be a harm to society to allow things to happen as they have been, though -- platforms started out as reasonably free, with only the most egregious content removed, used this freedom to develop a moat, and then are gradually restricting more and more content, while retaining their moat.
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#165If I am to believe the poster, this is a draft of an Executive Order anonymously sent to her. As per: https://twitter.com/klonick/status/1265850206396076033?s=21 The implications are fairly dramatic if this is legitimate and were to be adopted / executed. Specifically it would declare that sites like Twitter and Facebook are subject to the Communications Decency Act by virtue of their editorializing the content vs ac…
Wouldn’t this be a great outcome for twitter? I don’t think they particularly want to be in the role of playing fact checker / censor, but have been forced to do so due to pressure. This seems like it would, practically, tie their hands from continuing, due to the negative consequences, at which point they can legitimately say their hands are tied.
I agree, it could save platforms a lot of effort, and possibly put the onus on advertisers (who I suspect pressure the platforms anyways to engage in this sort of behavior) to adapt.
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#166I feel like this is fake or some internal draft that was never going to see the light of day. But if its real, i wonder what will happen to silcon valley. Part of the reason why internet companies like the united states is the legal environment is conducive to making online services. If that goes away, will companies move to other countries
Regression to 4chan? Assuming this continues as-is they can still moderate the site to remove obscene material, but otherwise have to act like platforms.
I don't think this draft will survive for long.
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#167I only skimmed the second part, but this doesn't even seem to prevent the actions it complains about. It's also interesting to think about reddit and subreddits. When a moderator of a subreddit engages in the behavior described here, deleting comments and posts and banning users arbitrarily, stickying editorial commentary in threads, are they acting as publishers? Are the mods now legally liable in the section 230 se…
I wonder if this would have implications for IRC or Discord as well.
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#168It would seem to me that this order tramples on the First Amendment. No matter how much the executive wants to trample on twitter, they are still a private company and can publish or not publish what they wish.
Could you expand further on that?
I don't see anything in the order that prohibits speech, instead focusing on questioning if Twitter et al. qualify for platform protections. Plus some other ad-money ammunition.
An argument could be made that this EO itself violates the first amendment as it's clearly in response to the tweet fact checks, thereby silencing twitter?
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
No but we are certainly a very litigious society and I'm sure there's an army of lawyers out there salivating over potential lawsuits against Twitter.
I dont really understand US law, but isnt this just a statement of executive branch policy. Wouldn't this not affect the ability of private parties to sue? They were always able to use any argument they felt made sense.
I think on reading it again, you're correct. If 230c is challenged again and reinterpreted by the Supreme Court then maybe. On reading some of the recent cases and circuit court decisions on things like "failure to warn" maybe this entire legislation will be reworked in the next Congress. It probably needs some clarification.
Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]
#170"Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution, [...]"
Does not this sound like sci-fi, straight from the beginning?