🐱 Democrats are open to changing one of the internet’s bedrock principles

CatParty


Technology has been a hotly debated issue among Democrats vying for their party’s nomination for president this year.
A number of candidates have called for breaking up major tech giants like Amazon and Google, while others have called for increased investment in broadband or restoring net neutrality rules.


But recently, the idea of tweaking—or even revoking—Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has also come up.
In mid-January, former Vice President Joe Biden said that the law should be “immediately” revoked. But Biden isn’t the only one who has brought up the idea.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last year that the section was a “gift” to tech giants and that they were not “treating it with the respect that it deserves.”
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has also introduced a bill that would amend Section 230 by making the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) certify that tech companies are being neutral in moderation, specifically regarding political bias.

Meanwhile, Attorney General William Barr said in December that the Department of Justice was “thinking critically” about Section 230. The DOJ is also inviting people to a workshop on the issue next month, according to the Information.
However, the idea of repealing Section 230 has been fiercely criticized. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has called the section “one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the internet.”

What is Section 230?
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in 1996, essentially protects websites from being liable for what is posted on them by third parties.
The law is obviously important for social media companies, but websites that have comment sections also rely on it.

Specifically, the section says that: “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” provides blanket protection.
This keeps companies like Facebook and YouTube free from facing lawsuits about the misinformation and conspiracy theories that percolate on their platforms.
2020 Democrats Section 230
Here is what some of the 2020 Democrats have said about Section 230. This post will be updated if more candidates speak about it.
1) Joe Biden
Biden made headlines in mid-January when he told the New York Times editorial board that Section 230 “should be revoked, immediately should be revoked.”

Biden continued to describe his reasoning, in the context of Facebook:
“It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy. You guys still have editors. I’m sitting with them. Not a joke,” Biden told the editorial board. “There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. It’s irresponsible. It’s totally irresponsible.”
In the past, Biden said “we should be considering taking away” the protections, according to Politico.
2) Andrew Yang
In November 2019, entrepreneur Andrew Yang released a planoutlining “regulating technology firms in the 21st century.”

Within the plan, Yang said he would “Amend the Communications Decency Act to reflect the reality of the 21st century—that large tech companies are using tools to act as publishers without any of the responsibility.”
3) Amy Klobuchar
In March, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) spoke with Recodeat South by Southwest where she said wanted to “look at how we can create more accountability” when asked about Section 230.
“We do not want to destroy these companies, right? But what we want to do is to put more accountability in place and we have been failing at that effort, and that’s why we need all of your help to get to a better place,” the Minnesota senator said.
4) Bernie Sanders
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) seemed to imply in a statement to Vox that Section 230 needed some revisions, specifically regarding platforms when they “knowingly allow content… that promotes and facilities violence.”

“Section 230 was written well before the current era of online communities, expression, and technological development, so will 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,” he told the news outlet.
5) Michael Bloomberg
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg told the Mercury News in mid-January that he was open to “more limited antitrust enforcement” when talking about breaking up large tech companies.
Bloomberg is in favor of reviewing Section 230 and is expected to release a technology proposal in the coming weeks, a campaign spokesperson told the Daily Dot.
6) Tulsi Gabbard
In late January, Gabbard told Politico this week that “in the coming days” she will be introducing legislation that “amends Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act by eliminating big tech’s immunity and ensuring accountability.”

In November, Gabbard’s campaign spokesperson hinted at her bill when talking with Politico, saying that she would “remove the protection from liability that some Big Tech platforms have.”
The spokesperson added “they should not have special protections if they allow false, defamatory, libelous articles or advertisements,” if they are “acting as publishers.”
7) Michael Bennet
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) told Vox that it was time to “revisit” Section 230, adding that it “may have made sense in the earliest years of the internet, but it makes little sense for a time when tech companies are some of the wealthiest and most powerful on the planet.”
 
That and even nol could get sued. It’s a really dumb idea
Well obviously, but its so unworkably dumb and open for abuse, and so self evidently capable of screwing over the democrats and friends that im struggling to see who the hell is pushing for this, unless everyone involved is so jawdroppingly short sighted they cannot fathom the new laws and regulations they are planning being used against them, either by internet niggers flooding every big website with predictable edgelord shit, or republicans using the "stopping falsehoods and fake news" regulations to start clamping down on left wing media.
 
It'd probably be a better idea to just push sites to have slightly more transparency. I'd imagine a decent lawyer wouldn't have trouble saying that a site like Youtube purposefully recommending a video to someone or putting it onto the Top Trending tab constitutes something like sponsorship, and thus should be visibly disclosed the same way.

These whacko old folks are all bitching that Big Tech "sees" these "bad posts" and does nothing, but that's screaming at wind. You can't even prove if a site's owners or moderator does or does not see some dweeb uploading a video where he says "Kill all blacks" in 10 different languages. What you can prove is if they actively promote it.
 
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in 1996, essentially protects websites from being liable for what is posted on them by third parties.
The law is obviously important for social media companies, but websites that have comment sections also rely on it.

Specifically, the section says that: “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” provides blanket protection.
This keeps companies like Facebook and YouTube free from facing lawsuits about the misinformation and conspiracy theories that percolate on their platforms.
Pretty sure it's to prevent media companies suing the shit out of websites for the slightest infringment of copyright on their platform. But I sure do wonder who will be the judge of what is considered misinformation and conspiracy theories. For example, is claiming a democratic nominee being a Russian asset constitutes as a conspiracy theories?
 
LITERALLY NOTHING. REGULATE THE PAYMENT PROCESSOR COMPANIES WHO ARE BOTTLENECKING INNOVATION ON THE INTERNET. DRAG THE BANKERS INTO THE FUCKING STREETS AND EXECUTE THEM
No, no, no, this won't work at all. Let me, a self-proclaimed policy expert handle this. What we do is create a board of editors (along with a gigantic bureaucracy to support it) to regulate all website content and we fill it with people who have ties to/work for the payment processors, largest media conglomerates and anti-hate speech organizations since they're the only experts at this. Plus we merge a whole bunch of other agencies and stuff into this new contraption to improve their budgetary position. Also Congress is allowed no oversight into any of this without the approval of the editors. And then, endless success. Like with The Fed, DHS and CFPB.
 
Back