The internet was suppose to be a way of free communication, get away from the rules of elites that want to tell people what to think and how to act . Now the elites rule the internet, not entirely but a huge part of it.
If only this step was done a year ago and not just before elections I would have been ecstatic. But if Trump does not win, and there is a good chance of that, all this push against the left is going to stop.
The internet was suppose to be a way of free communication, get away from the rules of elites that want to tell people what to think and how to act
I remember when the internet was new. People, especially social science professor types on the left, loved it- it would give a voice to people without one, let people connect across the world, bypass the interference of The Man, it seemed like it would be the best tool in the world for the proletariat to connect and overthrow their bourgeois oppressors, because as far as the left was concerned, the poor downtrodden masses were basically all democrats anyway, right?
And then they found out that there were people on the internet who actually did NOT agree with them, and holy shit, shut it all down. Ends up if you let anyone say anything, some of it is stuff social science professors don't agree with, and that just can't be allowed. From "Finally, letting anyone speak without a filter" to "Jesus Christ, more filters now! Filters everywhere! Pull the funding from anyone without the proper filters in place! The masses must not be allowed to speak!"
The real shock to the left was that the poor and downtrodden aren't all communists and that the proletariat is often thoroughly, happily capitalist. What a surprise that must have been.
You mean there are people that make less than the average income but still manage their money so well they may as well be rich? And did this without government welfare programs? HOW CAN THIS BE????
They can review it.. But frankly if you actually read what it says, there's no ambiguity - internet services are defined as platforms. Section 230 is simply not fit for purpose. As painful as the process might be, it needs to be repealed and replaced. Which means Republicans need a majority in the House and wake up to the existential crisis that they're facing.
Not entirely ... they're defined as platforms and shielded from mistakes, as long as they're operating in good faith when they block material or unknowingly hosting something that should be blocked.
If they block stuff without being able to demonstrate good faith or keep stuff up that they've been advised isn't lawful, they lose the protections Sec230 grants.
The fact that lower courts have interpreted Sec230 to be a blanket immunity from any legal action at all is the issue, not Sec230 as written.
No. Look it up and read the text. Paragraph (c)(1) defines them as platforms, full stop: "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."
Then the other parts protect them from civil liability for censoring. There might be some wiggle room there, especially in terms of tortious interference or contract law (though IANAL). But with (c)(1) as written there simply is no publisher v platform argument to be made. This section just needs to be scrapped and redone.
That might be worth investigating, though no one has had success with it in court so far because the "good faith" clauses in (c)(2) are so vague (and because even without section 230 they have a first amendment right to censor, ironically).
But the platform versus publisher argument is that they should lose the protection of section 230 if they act as a publisher. The threat of losing that protection would be a big deal because it would encourage them to act as platforms, or risk liability for every defamatory, libelous or otherwise illegal bit of content uploaded to their platform (other than copyright infringement, which is covered by the DMCA). Unfortunately no matter how reasonable it sounds, that argument just isn't supported by the text.
There should be an Article 230 Commission that will be the eyes and ears of internet entities for this to happened. The said commission will have the right to grant or revoke any website's 230 protections under its umbrella depending on how they perform.
Send in the feds to seize all records pertaining to exactly how individuals are empowered to censor, block and ban and the process for how 'mistakes' are walked backwards but then occur again.
The internet was suppose to be a way of free communication, get away from the rules of elites that want to tell people what to think and how to act . Now the elites rule the internet, not entirely but a huge part of it. If only this step was done a year ago and not just before elections I would have been ecstatic. But if Trump does not win, and there is a good chance of that, all this push against the left is going to stop.
I remember when the internet was new. People, especially social science professor types on the left, loved it- it would give a voice to people without one, let people connect across the world, bypass the interference of The Man, it seemed like it would be the best tool in the world for the proletariat to connect and overthrow their bourgeois oppressors, because as far as the left was concerned, the poor downtrodden masses were basically all democrats anyway, right?
And then they found out that there were people on the internet who actually did NOT agree with them, and holy shit, shut it all down. Ends up if you let anyone say anything, some of it is stuff social science professors don't agree with, and that just can't be allowed. From "Finally, letting anyone speak without a filter" to "Jesus Christ, more filters now! Filters everywhere! Pull the funding from anyone without the proper filters in place! The masses must not be allowed to speak!"
The real shock to the left was that the poor and downtrodden aren't all communists and that the proletariat is often thoroughly, happily capitalist. What a surprise that must have been.
You mean there are people that make less than the average income but still manage their money so well they may as well be rich? And did this without government welfare programs? HOW CAN THIS BE????
Yeah. Kulaks ptooie. To the wall with class traitors.
Does this look like the face of mercy?
Bet they stopped production since he made it so notorious (and no, the absurdity of it actually being notorious isn't lost on me).
I'll be sure to hold my breath.
They can review it.. But frankly if you actually read what it says, there's no ambiguity - internet services are defined as platforms. Section 230 is simply not fit for purpose. As painful as the process might be, it needs to be repealed and replaced. Which means Republicans need a majority in the House and wake up to the existential crisis that they're facing.
YES! and also NO!
It's because they are defined as platforms, that they cannot censor. They aren't allowed. They literally don't have a choice.
1B$ fines for everyone. Every hour, on the hour!
Not entirely ... they're defined as platforms and shielded from mistakes, as long as they're operating in good faith when they block material or unknowingly hosting something that should be blocked.
If they block stuff without being able to demonstrate good faith or keep stuff up that they've been advised isn't lawful, they lose the protections Sec230 grants.
The fact that lower courts have interpreted Sec230 to be a blanket immunity from any legal action at all is the issue, not Sec230 as written.
No. Look it up and read the text. Paragraph (c)(1) defines them as platforms, full stop: "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."
Then the other parts protect them from civil liability for censoring. There might be some wiggle room there, especially in terms of tortious interference or contract law (though IANAL). But with (c)(1) as written there simply is no publisher v platform argument to be made. This section just needs to be scrapped and redone.
Right, but I don't care if they're platforms, if they're still held liable for decisions made in bad faith. Is that not the important bit?
That might be worth investigating, though no one has had success with it in court so far because the "good faith" clauses in (c)(2) are so vague (and because even without section 230 they have a first amendment right to censor, ironically).
But the platform versus publisher argument is that they should lose the protection of section 230 if they act as a publisher. The threat of losing that protection would be a big deal because it would encourage them to act as platforms, or risk liability for every defamatory, libelous or otherwise illegal bit of content uploaded to their platform (other than copyright infringement, which is covered by the DMCA). Unfortunately no matter how reasonable it sounds, that argument just isn't supported by the text.
4 years too late
There should be an Article 230 Commission that will be the eyes and ears of internet entities for this to happened. The said commission will have the right to grant or revoke any website's 230 protections under its umbrella depending on how they perform.
They were already on suicide watch from the H1B changes.
Charge them with sedition while you're at it: make them fear doing hard time in an actual prison.
Send in the feds to seize all records pertaining to exactly how individuals are empowered to censor, block and ban and the process for how 'mistakes' are walked backwards but then occur again.