🐱 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.”
 
We need a poll how fast the tech giant execs will start backing free speech libertarians and nazis with their platforms. Also lmao tech Giants shooting themselves in the foot with pushing dems narrative
 
So the Dems are against free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to free assembly, borders, and now the $2.1 Trillion Internet Economy.

Nothing about this sounds very Democratic. It might be time for a rebrand.

The Democrats should henceforth be known as the Constitutional Criticism Party, or CCP.
 
So the Dems are against free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to free assembly, borders, and now the $2.1 Trillion Internet Economy.

Nothing about this sounds very Democratic. It might be time for a rebrand.

The Democrats should henceforth be known as the Constitutional Criticism Party, or CCP.

Or the Constant Constitutional Criticism Party, so we can have that nice CCCP abbreviation going.
 
So the Dems are against free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to free assembly, borders, and now the $2.1 Trillion Internet Economy.

Nothing about this sounds very Democratic. It might be time for a rebrand.
It's democratic because they've convinced people it is, ya big dummy.
Besides, they only hate the internet now because they think shitposters got Trump elected when in reality they pushed Hilary instead of Bernie, leading to a horrifically low voter turnout.
 
It's democratic because they've convinced people it is, ya big dummy.
Besides, they only hate the internet now because they think shitposters got Trump elected when in reality they pushed Hilary instead of Bernie, leading to a horrifically low voter turnout.
How much of this has to do with the fact the average Democrat is a 40-something career woman taking anti-depressants to deal with her anxiety?

Politics is not a prescription, they're treating it clinically.
 
Go drink more diet coke and die of a heart attack you stupid boomers.
If saccharin didn't give me cancer and aspartame didn't kill me in the 80's, it sure as fuck won't kill me now!!!
1580217826179.png
 
The big problem right now is not section 230, it's the lack of enforcement of it. Platforms like youtube, reddit and facebook want the 230 protections from liability while at the same time they also want to curate content in the same way a print publication does. They should be forced to have one or the other.
 
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.

Democrats are shortsighted. Look at how they changed filibusters and how that blew up in their faces, or pushing for trump before the primaries only for that to blow up in their faces, or judicial nominations and how that is blowing up in their faces every week. They act as if we're already a one-party country and they will be in power forever.
 
I’ve heard right wing people support a version this as means of forcing tech companies to be more hands off.
But if the left wing is in unison for that change, that’s unsettling.
I'm not really sure on that. There's some boomer tier right wingers which always chimp "Muh chosen people!" whenever something happens, but what Hawley is proposing in this seems pretty good. It's basically saying that major social media companies need to have neutral moderation. His track record has been pretty good on this kind of thing. He's the one that proposed the ban on "loot boxes" in online games, which is just a scam really.
 
How long til we sign in to our weekly allotted internet time via retinal scan?

Dear citizen, we want you on the internet as much as possible! We are only concerned for your well being and wish to provide you with endless content for your edification and consumption. Be on the internet as much as you want. Consume as much of our media as you want. It's all for you.
 
So the Dems are against free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to free assembly, borders, and now the $2.1 Trillion Internet Economy.

Nothing about this sounds very Democratic. It might be time for a rebrand.

The Democrats should henceforth be known as the Constitutional Criticism Party, or CCP.
Or the Constant Constitutional Criticism Party, so we can have that nice CCCP abbreviation going.
Personally, I'd go with the National Antifa Zeitgeist Insiders, or NAZI for short.
 
They pushing for this thinking a republican president that would make Trump look like Gandhi won't come to power and use all that against them.
Thinking ahead isn't exactly a strong suit of swamp dwellers.

"Getting rid of a supermajority for judicial nominations? It's fine, Democrats will surely control the Senate forever."
"FISA courts and the Patriot Act? It's fine, we'll never have an administration that abuses them for political motives."
 
Back