🐱 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.”
 
Even if they got this, any enforcement would be a free speech infringement slippery slope in no time fast.

If they are naively assuming this will hurt only their opponents, then that would mean the "punch nazis" crowd are fair game too. The current laws are a shield that benefit both sides while overtly favoring neither if you have a brain, tossing that away in the hopes it might work in your favor is sheer idiocy.
 
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.
Big tech want it bad. They are the only part of the internet landscape who have the infrastructure to survive post 230. Like most Democrat hard-on regulatory causes, it gives a huge market advantage to those that they are seeking to regulate.
 
So if the democrats win, all we need to do is post NIGGER on all vaguely left leaning social media websites, news sites, and business pages and let every ambulance chasing lolsuit addict know that its feeding time?

No, it wont work like that. The way it will work is that larger and reputable (really need a better word than that) sites and services have the legal budget to see off genuine threats meaning it will just be some low-grade back and forth removing socially unapproved stuff in some semi-token effort. Or else they'll create AI that removes it for them wholesale. Smaller sites like this or which have a heavily unapproved level of content will get de facto shutdown through being unable to legally defend themselves. The phrase "the process is the punishment" will be very relevant to a site defending itself in court, should they fight it that far.

Mildly controversial sites will be brought into line or buried. Forcing their mildly controversial membership to more hardcore and extreme sites. People who merely want to debate racial politics will end up rubbing shoulders with Stormfront types because those will be the only places left you're allowed to have a controversial opinion. The end result will be people being pushed to be ever more extreme. Which is what the Dems seem to want. They're the political analogue of someone who keeps trying the "not touching you" game in the hopes you'll snap and justify them calling the police on you.
 
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.
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.
Being allowed to choose what you host is a first amendment right. If someone wants to create a platform for, say, terfs or for talking about lolcows (and in the process, restrict that platform to those topics, ie curation), they should be allowed to without necessarily being held responsible as the actual authors of that content.

It should be legal to start a self publishing business.

That's what section 230 guarantees. And I guarantee that if people start fucking with that, it won't be facebook et al that will suffer. It'll be sites like kiwifarms.

It's a bad fucking idea to give the government the power to dictate to you the rules for your hosting platform.
 
Being allowed to choose what you host is a first amendment right. If someone wants to create a platform for, say, terfs or for talking about lolcows (and in the process, restrict that platform to those topics, ie curation), they should be allowed to without necessarily being held responsible as the actual authors of that content.

It should be legal to start a self publishing business.

That's what section 230 guarantees. And I guarantee that if people start fucking with that, it won't be facebook et al that will suffer. It'll be sites like kiwifarms.

It's a bad fucking idea to give the government the power to dictate to you the rules for your hosting platform.
Censorship coming from a corporation is still censorship. Aside from that, at this point it's almost delusional to not consider big tech as a sort of pseudo-government. They pretty much already behave as sovereign entities with their little "muh multinational company" argument, they collude with each other to meet their goals, and about the only way to avoid them is to simply not use the internet at all, which isn't really an option in modern times. So what you're really arguing in favor of is for some oligarchic cabal to determine the extent of your rights as opposed to some organization with at least some semblance of due process.

Furthermore, you don't even actually know if the dirty shit they're doing on the surface is actually all they're doing, nor do you know if they aren't just an arm of bad actors within various governments. It's not like it would be far-fetched to assume big tech is giving out your info for favors/shekels to nations such as China, which is clearly a violation of your 4th amendment rights.





Edit:
This argument is silly anyway. One of the most basic aspects of all constitutional rights has always been "your rights end where another person's rights begin," clearly big tech is infringing on other private citizens' rights. Aside from this, if they want to be "multinationals" I don't see how they have any US rights to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Aside from that, at this point it's almost delusional to not consider big tech as a sort of pseudo-government. They pretty much already behave as sovereign entities with their little "muh multinational company" argument, they collude with each other to meet their goals, and about the only way to avoid them is to simply not use the internet at all, which isn't really an option in modern times.
What makes you think there's collusion going on? Like actual collusion?

I think it's much more likely that all these social media dipshits think alike. No collusion necessary.

It's an important distinction.
One of the most basic aspects of all constitutional rights has always been "your rights end where another person's rights begin," clearly big tech is infringing on other private citizens' rights.
I wouldn't say that's clear at all. In the general case of "social media site choosing not to host certain kinds of content"? I'd say it's extremely dubious they're infringing on anyone's rights that way.

Interfering with who facebook gets to ban opens the door for them to do that on kiwifarms. I don't trust the government to define rules that could somehow exclude kiwifarms but target facebook. (Well, and the bigger argument is that I think it's fair for a site to get big and own the scale it built.)

I think it's much safer to target the financial industry and thus make it easier for new platforms to build their own scale independent from twitter/facebook.

And scaling new platforms isn't remotely as difficult as people portray it. Look at Medium.com, for example.
 
What makes you think there's collusion going on? Like actual collusion?

I think it's much more likely that all these social media dipshits think alike. No collusion necessary.

It's an important distinction.

I wouldn't say that's clear at all. In the general case of "social media site choosing not to host certain kinds of content"? I'd say it's extremely dubious they're infringing on anyone's rights that way.

Interfering with who facebook gets to ban opens the door for them to do that on kiwifarms. I don't trust the government to define rules that could somehow exclude kiwifarms but target facebook. (Well, and the bigger argument is that I think it's fair for a site to get big and own the scale it built.)

I think it's much safer to target the financial industry and thus make it easier for new platforms to build their own scale independent from twitter/facebook.

And scaling new platforms isn't remotely as difficult as people portray it. Look at Medium.com, for example.
>I wouldn't say that's clear at all

Lol how is that not clear? It was one thing when it was just sites banning people for stupid shit, but it's almost impossible to even start your own site these days if you're not willing to go along with big techs' dogma, even this place has gotten fucked by some of this shit. To me this is just a nutty argument, and if you applied it to corporate conduct anywhere else, you'd see how absurd it is. Let's just say someone came to your hometown, bought up every store, and then kicked you out of all of those stores unless you cooperated with whatever the fuck they wanted, clearly this would be a violation of your rights, but somehow it's fine on the internet? Furthermore, this is all assuming that this shit won't get worse, even though it has been. What if let's say ISPs start merging into a few big "multinationals," and then just start outright banning people from the internet entirely for wrong think? This is just something that could happen within this decade, but what about further down the road? Brick, and mortar stores are certainly starting to lose ground to people ordering online, and you could easily see a situation many years down the road where you can't even buy the basic necessities without cucking to some company like Amazon.

To me, if there's not going to at least be some regulation requiring some degree of laissez faire moderation, there at least needs to be enforcement of anti-trust laws.
 
Lol how is that not clear? It was one thing when it was just sites banning people for stupid shit, but it's almost impossible to even start your own site these days if you're not willing to go along with big techs' dogma, even this place has gotten fucked by some of this shit.
What are you talking about? It's extremely, extremely easy to start your own site. There are definitely web hosts out there that have bulletproof free speech policies. Big tech doesn't have anything to do with it.

The issues that KF has had with hosts had more to do with Vordrak persistently harassing every host we landed on. In one case, we had a host that was willing to give him the finger (and shoulder the bad press of hosting KF), but because he lived in Canada, Vordrak was threatening him with some sort of commonwealth legal cuckery.

As time went on, KF's hosting issues become more financial than big tech related. Which, like I said, I'm in favor of regulating.
 
I’ve heard right wing people support a version of 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.
That's the beauty of it, partisans on both sides think that social media is hostile territory and both would rather destroy it than allow this state of affairs to continue. The lefties are mad that it hasn't gone full Resetera, and the right wingers are mad (justifiably) that the targets of journalist dogpiles get demonetized or yeeted, and their associates get shadowbanned.

This is especially pronounced among boomer neolibs like Biden who fondly remember the days of the CNN stranglehold over the flow of information, where the greatest threat to their power over the American psyche were loons like Bill O'Reilly and radio shock jocks.
 
What are you talking about? It's extremely, extremely easy to start your own site. There are definitely web hosts out there that have bulletproof free speech policies. Big tech doesn't have anything to do with it.

The issues that KF has had with hosts had more to do with Vordrak persistently harassing every host we landed on. In one case, we had a host that was willing to give him the finger (and shoulder the bad press of hosting KF), but because he lived in Canada, Vordrak was threatening him with some sort of commonwealth legal cuckery.

As time went on, KF's hosting issues become more financial than big tech related. Which, like I said, I'm in favor of regulating.
You make a valid argument, but I still really think you're missing the big picture which is that the situation is getting worse, and the worse it gets, the harder it is going to be to address. To me it seems like big tech is trying to set itself up to control society in an Orwellian fashion. If they keep gaining more power, it will eventually get to where you literally have no privacy, and wont even be able to function within society without their consent.

Edit:
Like I've said, I think more than anything, you just need anti-trust laws to be enforced. It won't ever get to that point if you don't have so much power in the hands of such a small group.
 
Back