221–230 of 392 posts
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.
Fox News and Breitbart are both publishers, and do not claim to be platforms to shield themselves from liability. Totally different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In this sense, law is similar to code, but far easier to exploit. I see way too few computer engineer criminal masterminds to accept this hypothesis at face value. ;)
A better measuring stick might be lawyers and judges regularly applying the law in inconsistent ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In this sense, law is similar to code, but far easier to exploit. I see way too few computer engineer criminal masterminds to accept this hypothesis at face value. ;)
A better measuring stick might be lawyers and judges regularly applying the law in inconsistent ways.
Applying to be a lawyer in and of itself can be a process of figuring out the correct paperwork to fill out and asking for a special exemption on a piece of missing information or a missed deadline.
Yeah, that’s not suspicious at all. Also, the DOJ really should back off here. They’re an article II department, their job is enforcement and not legislation. If the law should change, that is emphatically congresses responsibility. They can recommend all they want, it should be valueless though.
> DOJ really should back off here > They can recommend all they want Isn't that what they are doing, recommending? Your statements seem contradictory.
Not like Barr's words: "For too long Section 230 has provided a shield for online platforms to operate with impunity. Ensuring that the internet is a safe, but also vibrant, open and competitive environment is vitally important to America." Because those are Trump/Barr opinions or value judgments about how good or bad the recent state of affairs has been and about what is supposed to be important to America.
Law enforcement isn't supposed to set the policy objectives. They're just supposed to implement them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are there so many people here surprised that executive departments participate in proposing legislation? It seems like completely normal activity to me.
I guess that depends - is it a frequent occurrence, historically?
here is the DoJ's breakdown and red-line changes: 1. Incentivizing Online Platforms to Address Illicit Content The first category of potential reforms is aimed at incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online, while preserving the core of Section 230’s immunity for defamation. a. Bad Samaritan Carve-Out. First, the Department proposes denying Section 230 immunity to truly bad actors.…
You mean...Samaritan? The Samaritans were the Nazis of their day and the legend is about a Samaritan that rose above his race and did what was good - thus, the one Good Samaritan.
You wouldn’t say Bad Nazi. You just say Nazi and Good Nazi.
I don't care for most of it except this: >> Carve-Out for Actors Who Purposefully Blind Themselves and Law Enforcement to Illicit Material >>...it makes little sense to apply “Good Samaritan” immunity to a provider that intentionally designs or operates its services in a way that impairs its ability to identify criminal activity occurring on (or through) its services, or to produce relevant information to government…
Wow, that seems to be written with Apple (at least) in mind, and is terrifying. I want operators to intentionally design and operate their services in way that impairs their ability to identify any activity, because any exceptions are exploits. Just saying "criminal activity" doesn't make it not spying on Americans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain more why the section is particularly disastrous? I agree that it's a dumb name. The section: (1) “BAD SAMARITAN” CARVE-OUT. Subsection (c)(1) shall not apply in any criminal prosecution under State law or any State or Federal civil action brought against an interactive computer service provider if, at the time of the facts giving rise to the prosecution or action, the service provider acted purposeful…
It is also a dumb name because the phrase "Good Samaritan" comes from the unexpectedly helpful behavior of the original Samaritan -- Samaritans and Jews despised each other, so the man who was ignored by a priest and a Levite, but helped by..of all people!..a Samaritan, found cause to remark on this. (This is all from memory...) Going by the original parable, this should probably just be "Samaritan carve-out," or may…
here is the DoJ's breakdown and red-line changes: 1. Incentivizing Online Platforms to Address Illicit Content The first category of potential reforms is aimed at incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online, while preserving the core of Section 230’s immunity for defamation. a. Bad Samaritan Carve-Out. First, the Department proposes denying Section 230 immunity to truly bad actors.…
This disallows the common practice of open-ended moderation criteria such as "Be kind. Don't be snarky". Proposed section (c)(1)(b) removes the safe harbor except for moderation criteria on the list in proposed (c)(2)(a), which is: "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, promoting terrorism or violent extremism, harassing, promoting self-harm, or unlawful"
> Provide Definition of Good Faith. Second, the Department proposes adding a statutory definition of "good faith" which would limit immunity for content moderation decisions to those done in accordance with plain and particular terms of service and accompanied by a reasonable explanation...
Open-ended moderation criteria such as "Be kind. Don't be snarky" are at risk of not being judged "particular" enough, which is a requirement of proposed section (g)(5)(a), meaning that sites with open-ended criteria could be judged as "not in good faith" according to this definition, and lose their safe harbor.