Disaster Biden wants to revoke Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - Nice internet you got there


Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden wants to get rid of the legal protection that has shielded social media companies including Facebook from liability for users’ posts.

The former vice president’s stance, presented in an interview with The New York Times editorial board, is more extreme than that of other lawmakers who have confronted tech executives about the legal protection from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

“Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” Biden said in the interview published Friday.

The bill became law in the mid-1990s to help still-nascent tech firms avoid being bogged down in legal battles. But as tech companies have amassed more power and billions of dollars, many lawmakers across the political spectrum along with Attorney General William Barr, agree that some reforms of the law and its enforcement are likely warranted.

But revoking the clause in its entirety would have major implications for tech platforms and may still fail to produce some of the desired outcomes. Section 230 allows for tech companies to take “good faith” measures to moderate content on their platforms, meaning they can take down content they consider violent, obscene or harassing without fear of legal retribution.

“Section 230 obviously benefits not just Facebook,” Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone told CNBC. “It’s not just foundational to the internet, it’s what allows The New York Times to host reader comments on their websites.”

Stone also pointed to a Facebook executive’s comments on the subject at a hearing on digital deception last week. Monika Bickert, Facebook’s vice president of global policy management told Congress, “Section 230 is an important part of my team being able to do what we do so — yes, it gives us the ability to proactively look for abuse and remove it.”

Biden’s stance on Section 230 will likely be met with similar criticism in Silicon Valley to that lodged at Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., after he introduced legislation in June that would tie the protections of Section 230 to voluntary audits of the tech companies that prove their practices are “politically neutral.” Trade groups representing tech firms including Facebook, Twitter and Google said at the time that Hawley’s bill would make it much more difficult for tech companies to remove reprehensible content.

Biden’s comments on Section 230 are more pronounced than those of his Democratic rivals. Asked by Vox last year how platforms should be held responsible for hate speech or misinformation, Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., for example, said he would “work with experts and advocates to ensure that these large, profitable corporations are held responsible when dangerous activity occurs on their watch, while protecting the fundamental right of free speech in this country and making sure right-wing groups don’t abuse regulation to advance their agenda.”
 
Quid Pro Joe is a senile fucking moron and an authoritarian despot. I want Facebook to burn in a fire of it's own making but it is 100% ridiculous to hold them responsible for what any given user says. As always, this is about nothing more than a cabal of tyrants granting themselves and their cronies the power to silence dissenting speech. They want to make pro-gun arguments here in the states illegal just the same as C16 makes talking about sex differences illegal in Canada. It's all in the service of creating a one-party police state.
 
RIP all the tech company shilling zucc, google and friends would've done if he wins the nomination.

“Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” Biden said in the interview published Friday.

The "For Zuckerberg" part, how craven can he be? Just how much cash did the reptilian give him?
 
Biden for his part will probably not be getting nominated
I dunno man, it's the DNC, and he's still leading in the polls.

Besides, that mulatto quasi-nigger of an ex-President has straight out admitted he would sabotage Bernies chance to get nominated, and Pocahontas is falling hard.

I would have smelled a Butt-surge, but then Bloomberg happened. Exciting times indeed.
 
I dunno man, it's the DNC, and he's still leading in the polls.

Besides, that mulatto quasi-nigger of an ex-President has straight out admitted he would sabotage Bernies chance to get nominated, and Pocahontas is falling hard.

I would have smelled a Butt-surge, but then Bloomberg happened. Exciting times indeed.

Biden hasn't been leading in any polls since a few weeks ago, actually.

 
How would this hurt Suckerberg? He already censors whatever he doesn't like and he wants to mint his own currency so whatever it takes to make him look good he'd go along with it. "I don't want to do this but the gobermint made me do it guys!"
Legal fees are a bitch to fight, and disallowed content is highly subjective and up to personal interpretation.

That being said, Biden is a lock for the nominee. Why? Trumps impeachment process targeted Biden, the entire thing resting on the basis that trump is manipulating the election. If Biden doesnt make it past the first round then their argument has a lot less impact. If he is the nominee and trump is trying to pull shit, then its suddenly a huge deal.
 
Legal fees are a bitch to fight, and disallowed content is highly subjective and up to personal interpretation.

That being said, Biden is a lock for the nominee. Why? Trumps impeachment process targeted Biden, the entire thing resting on the basis that trump is manipulating the election. If Biden doesnt make it past the first round then their argument has a lot less impact. If he is the nominee and trump is trying to pull shit, then its suddenly a huge deal.
He's worth 74 billion. He probably keeps certain lawyers/firms on retainer just so the other side can't hire them due to conflict of interest. Legal fees are not a concern for this guy, especially in a business context that doesn't affect him or his wealth.
 
> Section 230 allows for tech companies to take “good faith” measures to moderate content on their platforms, meaning they can take down content they consider violent, obscene or harassing without fear of legal retribution.

Isn't this more about people uploading blatantly illegal stuff, like things that are copyright infringement? Surely the right to free speech would prevent these organisations for being prosecuted for speech that isn't directly calling for violence.

>making sure right-wing groups don’t abuse regulation to advance their agenda

Oy vey goyim, we've gotta protect our right to free speech whilst shutting down our political enemies! Why the fuck would this stupid old kike say this publicly, it's just going to be used as evidence of political bias and infringement of people's right to free speech if he ever does manage to exert control over these platforms.
 
Back