Repeal Section 230 and Its Platform Protections, Urges New Bipartisan US Bill (eff.org)
- Reference: 0180381767
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/12/14/0656223/repeal-section-230-and-its-platform-protections-urges-new-bipartisan-us-bill
- Source link: https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
"The law prevents most civil suits against users or services that are based on what others say," [2]explains an EFF blog post . "Experts argue that a repeal of Section 230 could kill free speech on the internet," [3]writes LiveMint — though America's last two presidents both supported a reapl:
> During his first presidency, US President Donald Trump called to repeal the law and signed an executive order attempting to curb some of its protections, though it was challenged in court. Subsequently, former President Joe Biden also voiced his opinion against the law.
An [4]EFF blog post explains the case for Section 230:
> Congress passed this bipartisan legislation because it recognized that promoting more user speech online outweighed potential harms. When harmful speech takes place, it's the speaker that should be held responsible, not the service that hosts the speech... Without Section 230, the Internet is different. In Canada and Australia, courts have allowed operators of online discussion groups to be punished for things their users have said. That has reduced the amount of user speech online, particularly on controversial subjects. In non-democratic countries, governments can directly censor the internet, controlling the speech of platforms and users. If the law makes us liable for the speech of others, the biggest platforms would likely become locked-down and heavily censored. The next great websites and apps won't even get started, because they'll face overwhelming legal risk to host users' speech.
But "I strongly believe that Section 230 has long outlived its use," Senator Whitehouse [5]said this week , saying Section 230 "a real vessel for evil that needs to come to an end."
> "The laws that Section 230 protect these big platforms from are very often laws that go back to the common law of England, that we inherited when this country was initially founded. I mean, these are long-lasting, well-tested, important legal constraints that have — they've met the test of time, not by the year or by the decade, but by the century.
>
> "And yet because of this crazy Section 230, these ancient and highly respected doctrines just don't reach these people. And it really makes no sense, that if you're an internet platform you get treated one way; you do the exact same thing and you're a publisher, you get treated a completely different way.
>
> "And so I think that the time has come.... It really makes no sense... [Testimony before the committee] shows how alone and stranded people are when they don't have the chance to even get justice. It's bad enough to have to live through the tragedy... But to be told by a law of Congress, you can't get justice because of the platform — not because the law is wrong, not because the rule is wrong, not because this is anything new — simply because the wrong type of entity created this harm."
[1] https://bsky.app/profile/judiciarydems.senate.gov/post/3m7sjbvhbms2z
[2] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
[3] https://www.livemint.com/news/us-news/us-senator-moves-to-file-section-230-repeal-what-is-the-law-how-will-a-ban-affect-your-free-speech-on-the-internet-11765605040550.html
[4] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
[5] https://youtu.be/igcufxnw578?si=iszNh2ltvCA1wyhU
Re: (Score:3)
> This is all to defend Israel from its detractors, per usual
It isn't, although that is obviously part of it. It's not about one issue. It's about every issue. As long as we can share unapproved ideas, we can resist. Taking away our ability to do that on the internet would deprive us of the use of the world's greatest-ever communications tool for resistance, or at the very least severely curtail that use by making it inaccessible to the average person.
We've done the experiment (Score:2)
"Congress passed this bipartisan legislation because it recognized that promoting more user speech online outweighed potential harms."
Well, we've tried it for nearly 30 years. Has it outweighed them?
Re:We've done the experiment (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. End of story. Now, if you want to rewrite Section 230 so that companies that routinely act more like a publisher rather than a mere common carrier can be held liable for their acts of publishing, then by all means knock yourself out... but, of course, that's not what you or anyone else is saying, because this isn't about holding corporations liable for their actions, but silencing an unruly public that is no longer on board with your agenda.
Repealing Section 230 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
would result in news organisations, big platforms (== social media) censoring opinions that they believe that Trump does not like as they fear being sued for displaying them. There is no doubt that the opinions would be attacked in a partisan way -- this is already happening, Trump has sued media for saying things that he does not like.
This would result in suppression of anti Trump opinion - this is what he wants to try to bolster his waning popularity and destroy USA democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
It would cut both ways. About half of what comes out of Trump’s mouth is lies and the rest is borderline hate-speech. Without 230, the networks would have to suppress a solid 3/4 that guys speech, or open themselves up to a hurricane of civil lawsuits. Right now, they can broadcast almost level of inflammatory content, harvest the ratings, user data and ad revenue, with zero consequences. If anyone complains, they hold up section 230 with one hand and a middle finger with the other, and laugh all the
Re: (Score:2)
> This would result in suppression of anti Trump opinion
It will result in suppression of all anti- power/wealth opinion, i.e. all criticism of government or big-pocketed business.
This change is sponsored by litigious motherfuckers. Trump is only the instance-du-jour, a few percent of the overall threat, though very much a shining example of it.
Losing section 230 kills the internet (Score:1)
Without the ability to protect platforms you will see an immediate chilling effect as hyper aggressive moderation kicks off on the large platforms who can't weather lawsuits.
Billionaires have decided they have had enough of capitalism. They have had enough competition they have had enough of paying wages and they are absolutely sick and fucking tired of consumers.
So there is a huge multi-prong push to break down any system of competition and this is part of it. The billionaire owned platforms of co
"Free speech"? (Score:2)
There hasn't been "free speech" on the Internet since the days of LiveJournal and MySpace. Look at what the platforms show you in the name of the almighty algorithm...only rarely is it what the user wants to see. Instead, it's what the "verified" (read: paid serious money to promote their material) accounts have decided you should see, with a sprinkling of the accounts you actually want to see thrown in just to maintain your engagement.
The only exception of which I'm aware is BlueSky, which still, so far, s
Re: (Score:2)
"The platforms" are, at best, a percent of the internet.
Sign up for a linode, put up any sort of website you can imagine on it, and explain why you would choose for the algorithms you write or install, to work the way that you fear.
It doesn't have to be as bad as you say, unless you want it. That's essential freedom.
Algorithmically generated feeds (Score:2)
I think this is some middle ground to modify section 230. Abolishing all protections for websites for what their users post will have a terrible chilling affect on online speech. Imagine what speech limitations would look like here if Slashdot could be held responsible for whatever crazy stuff an Anonymous Coward posts. I think modifying section 230 to limit protections for large sites for algorithmically generated feeds, but retain protections for sites that don't use proprietary algorithms to decide what
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is some middle ground to modify section 230. Abolishing all protections for websites for what their users post will have a terrible chilling affect on online speech.
Indeed. For what it's worth we see the same black-and-white expreme thinking over here in terms of political solutions as well.
If something isn't working perfectly, shred it and take a shit on the shreddings! It's the only way.
I think modifying section 230 to limit protections for large sites for algorithmically generated feeds,
Yeah
there's no safe space without 230 (Score:2)
At every level of speech expression, there's a corporation involved. Nobody exists on the internet without any at some point.
So maybe I leave the 'big' social media and news sites (including youtube) and just host a blog as an ISP on a dedicated domain and VM? Nope, now my hosting provider is liable. So instead I just self-host my publishing on docker containers? Nope, because then my domain name provider and/or dyn-dns could be held liable.
They'll always have some corporation to threaten at some point to
Apparently he only said it ... (Score:2)
... on fake-Twitter, and Youtube. At least if we go by the /. summary, lol
Section 230 repealed hands the internet to the CCP (Score:2)
The lawyers will destroy social media platforms without section 230. Chinese platforms will tell lawyers to FO.
Section 230 needs tweaking. Any platform that alters or removes postings that are 1st amendment compliant should be deemed a publisher. Adding context or community notes is not an alteration.
Senator Whitehouse (Score:2, Insightful)
Age 70. Enough said.