Top US Congressman Says Silicon Valley's Self-Regulating Days 'Probably Should Be' Over (recode.net) 110
On the technology podcast Recode Decode, America's Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, said that Silicon Valley's self-regulating days "probably should be" over. Recode reports:
Pelosi said Silicon Valley is abusing the privilege of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says that internet companies are not responsible for what is posted on their platforms. "230 is a gift to them, and I don't think they are treating it with the respect that they should," she said. "And so I think that that could be a question mark and in jeopardy.... For the privilege of 230, there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it, and it is not out of the question that that could be removed."
Asked about Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren's proposal to break up Amazon, Google, and Facebook, Pelosi said she had not studied it closely. Instead, she more cautiously suggested that some agglomerations of power may be worth breaking up. "I know there could be some clear lines that we see in our community, of companies that maybe could be easily broken up without having any impact, one on the other," she said. "I'm a big believer in the antitrust laws, I think that's very important for us to have them and to use them, and to subject those who should be subjected to it. "
Asked about Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren's proposal to break up Amazon, Google, and Facebook, Pelosi said she had not studied it closely. Instead, she more cautiously suggested that some agglomerations of power may be worth breaking up. "I know there could be some clear lines that we see in our community, of companies that maybe could be easily broken up without having any impact, one on the other," she said. "I'm a big believer in the antitrust laws, I think that's very important for us to have them and to use them, and to subject those who should be subjected to it. "
Re: (Score:2)
proposal to break up Amazon, Google, and Facebook,
That'll never happen, for the same reason that no-one could take on J.Edgar Hoover while he was alive, they have so much dirt on everyone in Congress and/or their families, relatives, business partners, ..., that they can instantly end the career of anyone who tries to take them on. Look what happened when the IRS took on Scientology, and Scientology in the 1980s were rank amateurs compared to the global surveillance machine that Fecebook and Google today are.
They are moderating like mad (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally agree that all of the major companies have long ago abandoned any pretense to being neutral platforms, and all should be excluded from 230 protections.
Maybe they could be given year long trial periods to see if they could actually behave with thread of 230 status being rescinded.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
all of the major companies have long ago abandoned any pretense to being neutral platforms, and all should be excluded from 230 protections.
Nancy Pelosi is not interested in making them more neutral. Her goal is to impose more political correctness and censorship.
Protections for free speech should be strengthened, not removed.
Re:They are moderating like mad (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
all of the major companies have long ago abandoned any pretense to being neutral platforms, and all should be excluded from 230 protections.
Nancy Pelosi is not interested in making them more neutral. Her goal is to impose more political correctness and censorship.
Protections for free speech should be strengthened, not removed.
All Pelosi, Democrats, and Republicans know is that 2020 is an election year, and the troughs are ready for "campaign contributions". Most politicians tend to stay bought until a better offer comes along.
Threatening the hand(s) that feed you is a time honored tradition for bigger and better lobbying efforts...
Re: (Score:1)
That's all bullshit. You'll be able access what you want. There's enough bandwidth for everybody. And we just have to learn to piggyback on their signal. You have no right to censor anybody. I don't care how offensive you find it. We need bulletproof! Arguing about it is so very stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
You are merely a pro-censorship trollbot operated by mass media fascists and cease to amuse... You are free to go away.
Love ya
Toodles
Re:They are moderating like mad (Score:5, Insightful)
Then it gets flooded with actual Nazis. As in "blood and soil", Hitler did nothing wrong, genocide people based on genetics, real life fucking Nazis.
Even Nazis have a right to speak, and you have a right to disagree and speak back. That's what freedom means.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Freedom also means not being compelled to give Nazis a platform if you don't want to. USC 230 safe harbour protections do allow for moderation and selecting what kind of content the site wants to host.
Re: (Score:2)
Even Nazis have a right to speak, and you have a right to disagree and speak back. That's what freedom means.
I hate Illinois Nazis!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And you're a fucking pro-censorship fascist, & a moron to boot.
Re: (Score:2)
all of the major companies have long ago abandoned any pretense to being neutral platforms, and all should be excluded from 230 protections.
Nancy Pelosi is not interested in making them more neutral. Her goal is to impose more political correctness and censorship.
Protections for free speech should be strengthened, not removed.
Well, this goes both ways. The Left is arguably OK with kicking the right off of platforms (and a big chunk of Silicon Valley's tech workers are on the left), but it would prefer to use anti-free speech laws instead of regulation to do it. (Centralized power is useful when you're trying to Progress, after all.) The Right thinks free speech is free speech, but but is starting to be of the mindset that once you're a mass communications platform oligopoly, *some* regulation is needed to prevent abuse. (We don'
Re: (Score:2)
"The Left is arguably OK with kicking the right off of platforms"
No; the left is ok with kicking the trolls/nazis/etc off of THEIR platform because that's their RIGHT. They do not owe you a platform. Don't like it, goto gab or 8chan.
And there you, Anonymous Coward, have identified the problem. You want to kick a bona-fide Nazi off the platform? Fine. The problem is that the left has convinced itself that everyone on the right are Nazis, because the left seems to have gone insane. As a result, now we have to have a "when push comes to shove" discussion about how the final say is regulated on large-scale comms platforms.
tl;dr: This is why we can't have nice things.
Re:They are moderating like mad (Score:5, Informative)
I personally agree that all of the major companies have long ago abandoned any pretense to being neutral platforms, and all should be excluded from 230 protections.
You idiot. The safe harbor of 47 USC 230 has nothing to do with being a neutral platform. In fact, the express goal was to encourage sites to remove 'unwholesome' content.
I think you need a brief history lesson:
Prior to the enactment of the safe harbor there were three applicable legal precedents. The first was the old rule that the publisher of defamatory content was responsible for it just as the author was, because they had the opportunity to review it and verify it. The second was Cubby, Inc. v Compuserve, Inc., 776 F.Supp. 135 (SDNY 1991), which held that online services that hosted defamatory content were not responsible for it if it was uploaded by the users without the knowledge or approval of the service. Basically, this gave sites protection so long as they didn't moderate. The third was Stratton Oakmont, Inc v. Prodigy Services, Co., 1995 WL 323710 (NY Sup. Ct. 1995) which held that if the online service moderated anything at all, then it was liable even for things that it approved, ignored, or had been in error about.
The result was predictable: the only two safe options were to 1) not moderate anything, which would lead to ads, spam, defamation, hate speech, etc. proliferating, or 2) not allow posting, which would prevent even benign users from having a voice.
At about the same time, Congress decided it wanted online services to take voluntary steps to remove porn from online. But none of the services were stupid enough to try, since they couldn't moderate everything perfectly, requiring them to either moderate nothing or not allow posting.
Exasperated, Congress gave the services protection -- if they moderated imperfectly it wouldn't be held against them, and as they couldn't compel moderation, it would be up to each site to determine how much or how little to do. Thus, a site could remove porn and spam and malware but allow users to talk with one another without careful policing of every single post.
Re: (Score:1)
You stalking SuperKendall is tedious, repetitive, and unfruitful. You're a retard.
Re: LYING FAGGOT KENDALL AGREES, NOBODY CARES AT A (Score:1)
Politician IQ needs raising first (Score:5, Insightful)
But, um, no.
Re: Politician IQ needs raising first (Score:1)
FANG will welcome regulations. Easiest way for them to escape lawsuits. Just follow the law and keep making tons of money.
Don't understand regulation (Score:1)
If politicians could demonstrate an accurate understanding of science and technology, perhaps we could trust them to regulate it....
But, um, no.
They generally don't fully understand anything they regulate. What they understand is how to get elected.
Unfortunately getting elected doesn't make you actually qualified for office. It just gives you the office. It's like picking your CEO by popularity contest every year: it gives the employees some protection but at the cost of product quality and a lot of infighting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about just not reelecting them? Only we can turn over the house 100% instead of the usual 5 or 10, every two years the opportunity stares us in the face... It's worth a try, don't you think?
Re: Politician IQ needs raising first (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
You didn't pay attention. If you don't reelect the "experienced" politician, the lobbyist has to make a new attempt on the next one. And if the next one fails, he is supposed to be voted out also. It's up to the voters to fix the problem. Nobody else can do it. With current reelection rates, there is no incentive to fix anything.
Re: (Score:3)
It's up to the voters to fix the problem. Nobody else can do it
That's true. You can't help it if the voters want to elect a king.
Re: (Score:1)
So, when majority rule fails, what's the backup plan?
Re: Politician IQ needs raising first (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah you do have majority rule, with a minor variation for the president, but it's still close enough. If the people want to change the system, they can. There is no excuse. The voters are responsible for the people they reelect over and over.
Re: (Score:1)
It takes two thirds of both houses of congress to make change.
So what? People just have to elect the politicians that will make the change. The vote by the people, where it counts, works by simple majority. You have to try it before you can convince anybody that it doesn't work. You still can't blame anybody else but the voters. Even their apathy has power over the system, and is effectively exploited by some parties. In fact it's the apathy that props up the corruption everyone pretends to lament. So, real
Re: (Score:1)
I miss the old /. days when math wasn't hard for commenters.
Yes, do tell! Back at ya, friend! It's been a slice!
Re: Politician IQ needs raising first (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If politicians could demonstrate an accurate understanding of science and technology, perhaps we could trust them to regulate it.... But, um, no.
Maybe we should elect different politicians? Or even better, some of us who know (or think that know) this shit might run for office.
Till then, all we do is doubt everything and resist reflectively.
I mean, yeah, our political class is shit, but then, what does that make us? At the end of the day, we do need some regulation for the googles and facebooks in this country. And that will happen one way or another, so we better start wising the fuck up and take a more active part in the political system if we
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is that running for office means getting savaged, so you need first and foremost to be willing and able to put up with that before any other credentials are considered.
As younger politicians come up it will be interesting to see how they deal with having a public internet history. Unfortunately so far it seems to heavily favour post-truth populists whose gimmick is that their supporters know they are full of shit and don't care about that time they called someone the N word.
Re: (Score:2)
Good For Google, Bad For Everyone Else (Score:5, Insightful)
Google would be a-ok with Section 230 getting the axe. That'd mean that advertisers and other corporate partners would have an even greater portion of the Internet's presence, on Youtube and Google Search. They'd heavily restrict who can post to Youtube, saving them tons of money, and being able to blame the government, just like how Microsoft was able to blame the government when they were allowed/forced to turn over data stored in other countries. Twitter and Reddit would be reduced to verified accounts, with so few posts it's feasible to have moderators pre-approve all posts. Twitter is about the only social media site that'd be able to survive this transition, as it could easily turn into a 'read-only' website for the plebes to read announcements by VIPs.
Twitch would be reduced to a couple dozen known quantities being streamed, everyone else being muted and only allowed to stream whitelisted unmodded games.
It's not just the USA talking about this -- New Zealand, Australia and the UK are also talking about it. Just waiting for the fifth eye now...
Re:Good For Google, Bad For Everyone Else (Score:4, Informative)
Strike that, seems Canada is getting in on the act too. [nytimes.com]
Re:Good For Google, Bad For Everyone Else (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Crybaby Republican can't be a nazi cuz TOS, aww (Score:5, Insightful)
what is this Privacy Options nonsense (Score:1)
If I have to dismiss an annoying modal Privacy dialog every time I visit Slashdot then I will not visit Slashdot much any more. Instead I will be reading the same or similar stories on SolyentNews.
I don't keep cookies so the Privacy monstrosity pops up on every Slashdot page.
If you want to shoot all of your loyal customers then you are right on target!
Re: (Score:2)
Use noscript/safescript. That shit goes away everywhere.
Yeah , that isn't saying what you might think (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more like we have picked the winners and don't want to see anything "DISRUPTED" at this point so lets introduce lots of friction for would be new players.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This comment gets it. Businesses tend to support adding new restrictions under the guise of safety/precaution/concern when really they're mostly concerned with making the barrier to entry even higher, to make things more difficult for new entrants.
Right when we're going to tech war with China... (Score:1)
Destroy all our greatest companies. Can always count on the Dems for great ideas, amirite?
Censorship (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, and the companies she's talking about have been supporting government takeovers.
I guess (if they've thought about it) they must figure they'll be in a position to influence things so that as industry incumbents they get protection against future competition. It doesn't seem like it's totally worked out that way for them in Europe as the EU has started flexing their muscles to control parts of the Internet.
For the rest of us, let's try and stand on the one-time Schelling point [lesswrong.com] of no government regulatio
Sherman Act on telcom first!! (Score:1)
Those mofos need to be split up! Back to Title II and then 230 makes sense.
"Privilege" (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently she thinks that putting up a bulletin board that anyone can tack messages onto is a privilege which must be granted to you by the government. How absolutely backwards. The people grant government the privilege to restrict things the people think might need restricting, not the other way around. 230 was never a right given to the people. The people already had the right. 230 was just a reminder to the government of that fact, so that it wouldn't try to do something silly like infringe on it, forcing the people to go through a lengthy multi-year court battle before the SCotUS would finally reaffirm that The People have a fundamental right to freedom of expression without government interference. 230 exists for the same reason as the Bill of Rights - not because some law gave people those rights, but as a reminder to government not to try to infringe those rights.
You say you wanted freedom of expression. You got it. If this unfiltered view into what people are really thinking and saying makes you uncomfortable, that's your problem not theirs. Hiding it by contravening 230 is the technological equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. All the stuff that you dislike may disappear from your sight, but it hasn't actually gone away - it's still there, in people's minds, being spoken in private, and posted on non-major sites. If you feel these thoughts are wrong and need to be corrected, the proper fix is to educate and convince people so they agree with you and no longer think that way. Not to sweep it under the rug to make yourself feel like the house is cleaner because you can't see the dirt anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Bingo.
The catch to the freedoms of speech and expression you enjoy is that the people you disagree with get them, too... and no one is guaranteed the right not to be offended.
On another note, politicians on both sides of the aisle are the problem. Apologies if you're a heavily invested fan of one team.
Re: (Score:3)
Section 230 is about legal liability. If someone infected with measles wants to sue Facebook in civil court because they didn't shut down antivaxx posts, Section 230 protects them from that. If someone posts hate speech/death threats/whatever to Facebook, that prevents Facebook from being legally liable for hosting it. It's not about preventing the Attorney General from fining Facebook or throwing Zuck in jail over posts some rando made on Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only, that should say.
Re: (Score:1)
230 exists for the same reason as the Bill of Rights - not because some law gave people those rights, but as a reminder to government not to try to infringe those rights.
You are a colossal dipshit.
The safe harbor exists to get rid of porn and indecent material online. That's literally the purpose of it, that's why it was part of the Communications Decency Act.
Without the safe harbor, sites that allowed users to post and that moderated would arguably be liable for every post that wasn't removed from the site as if the site had published it themselves, under Stratton Oakmont, Inc v. Prodigy Services, Co., 1995 WL 323710 (NY Sup. Ct. 1995), a court case where Prodigy (remembe
Another Ad from Slashdot? (Score:1)
I don't get it, why is slashdot doing this? Pelosi is a moron, she voted for teh very laws that allow tech companies to do what she is now complaining about.
The reason for this "article" isn't the CDA but "presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren's proposal".
Freedom of speech (Score:1)
Freedom of the press. A fully protected occupation for US citizens.
The freedom to publish.
The ability to use social media as a utility to petition the government via a gov site on social media.
Publishers and the press should also get their tools of the trade (the internet) protected from the tyranny of government.
Should all gov approved US journalists be university educated from a gov funded and approved university?
Do US journalists need to pass a federal exam and get federal
This isn't that hard. (Score:4, Insightful)
One thing that can't be silenced (Score:2)
The Underground Press.
Long before this was a free country, our Revolution (the War of Insurrection, whatever the fuck you want to call what we started in 1776) was fueled by printing presses, literally underground. In basements. In the back of shops. That kind of thing.
If the Internet is censored, well, there's still ink and paper. Shoving leaflets at passerby did contribute greatly to ending the Vietnam war.
What, you think it couldn't work?
Sometimes the oldest ways are still the best ways.
Fuck censorsh