Trump To Congress: Repeal Section 230 Or I'll Veto Military Funding (arstechnica.com) 511
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: President Donald Trump has long been an outspoken foe of big technology companies. And in recent months, he has focused his ire on Section 230, a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that shields online platforms from liability for content posted by their users. In May, Trump called on the Federal Communications Commission to reinterpret the law -- though it's not clear the agency has the power to do that. Since then, he has tweeted about the issue incessantly. On Tuesday evening, Trump ratcheted up his campaign against Section 230. In a tweet, he called the law "a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity." He warned that "if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill."
The NDAA is a massive spending bill that Congress passes each year to authorize funding for the military. This year's version, now under active discussion on Capitol Hill, is expected to cost around $740 billion. The NDAA is seen as a "must pass" bill because no one wants to be blamed for holding up funding for the troops. So inserting language into it can be a way to pass proposals that might not stand on their own. But there's also a risk of a backlash -- especially if a measure is seen as unrelated to the military. This may be why Trump has started claiming that Section 230 is a "threat to our national security," since that would theoretically make it germane to a defense funding bill. Trump's campaign to repeal Section 230 appears to go beyond mere tweets. The White House is reportedly telling members of Congress the same thing in private that the president is telling his 88 million Twitter followers: that he will veto the NDAA if it doesn't repeal or at least overhaul Section 230.
The NDAA is a massive spending bill that Congress passes each year to authorize funding for the military. This year's version, now under active discussion on Capitol Hill, is expected to cost around $740 billion. The NDAA is seen as a "must pass" bill because no one wants to be blamed for holding up funding for the troops. So inserting language into it can be a way to pass proposals that might not stand on their own. But there's also a risk of a backlash -- especially if a measure is seen as unrelated to the military. This may be why Trump has started claiming that Section 230 is a "threat to our national security," since that would theoretically make it germane to a defense funding bill. Trump's campaign to repeal Section 230 appears to go beyond mere tweets. The White House is reportedly telling members of Congress the same thing in private that the president is telling his 88 million Twitter followers: that he will veto the NDAA if it doesn't repeal or at least overhaul Section 230.
Congress can over ride his veto (Score:4, Informative)
Not that anyone has the balls to actually do any of this.
It's a non story.
Re:Congress can over ride his veto (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Congress can over ride his veto (Score:4, Insightful)
If there is one single thing we should have all learned about Trump by now it's that he's not playing 10-dimentional chess. He's not a smart person and isn't capable of any form of strategy. Neither is anyone in his inner circle. He's just a dumb racists that appeals to dumb racists.
He says this is about repealing 230 because some people said somethings about him that made him cry, I believe him.
Re:Congress can over ride his veto (Score:4, Informative)
As they edit/delete comments, this could put in them into the publisher's legal area, which would be outside of the Section 230 protections they are currently offered.
You got things backwards, you can edit/delete objectionable comments and not be treated as a publisher BECAUSE OF 230
It is literally "Protection for "Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material."
Do you know what Good Samaritan means? It means a person trying to do a good thing. Do you know what the good thing is in the context of 230?
It's laid out right there in 230b,
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
What it means is if you DO edit/delete comments, for reasons including, literally, "otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", you are not liable. You'd have to act like a publisher, AND get rid of 230 to be treated as a publisher. Where does this idea that 230 protections go away when you filter content come from, it's the entire point of 230. It's a free pass to filter objectionable content.
This thing has DNA from both "think of the children", AND social conservatism. Newt Gingrich was speaker of the house and Bill Clinton was President when this was signed into law. To the conservative "victims" of section 230 out there, how do you suppose all your textualist judges will read this? I'm standing by with popcorn and beer to enjoy that display of mental gymnastics.
Re:Congress can over ride his veto (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile people familiar with "Art of the Deal" just think section 230 is his "big ask" to get Congress to reform it.
Has Trump even read Art of the Deal?
8^)
Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:2, Informative)
The people in charge (moderates call it "The Establishment", we on the left call them the "Ruling Class", the right wing calls them the "Deep State", same people) are moving to take back control of the Internet. They don't like that we can speak freely on it.
When S230 goes so goes the Internet. Without those protections companies will crack down, turning the Internet into cable TV. A few big players who get to decide what information you see and w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"You'll see massive, industry wide censorship."
.... which is exactly where we're moving now.
While Section 230 has made it possible for sites like YouTube and Facebook to exist without a barrage of litigation, those sites are simultaneously using it as a shield for their own censorship of views with which they disagree, which can sometimes be heavy-handed.
What's probably needed is some kind of revision to that Section that requires that in order to retain the protections of Section 230, you also have to meet
Re:Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I would not mind seeing section 230 protections removed for sites that curate content, as opposed to just moderating it.
If you decide what 3rd-party content shows up next in my feed - then you're publishing that content and should face legal responsibility for it the same as any other publisher. Make feeding baseless outrage, from either side, a money-losing proposition, instead of the easiest ways to being eyeballs to your advertising.
However, I have no confidence any change to 230 would even aim for that effect - the powerful don't want to eliminate baseless outrage, they just want to be able to steer it better.
Re:Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
If you remove section 230, the result will be censorship of *everything*, as they will then be responsible for any and all content/opinions they allow on their site.
Fair-play is a non-starter; as the government cannot enforce such a thing on private entities- it amounts to politically controlled speech.
The statute as is, is correct.
The complaint seems to be that the free market is too free.
Re:Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:5, Informative)
If you allow users to moderate, you're liable. That's what got Prodigy back in the 90s and directly resulted in this law being passed to prevent that from happening again.
If the protections of section 230 are not in place, then if there is the ability to moderate and it is used at all, it must be used to its maximum extent to remove any manner of unlawful content, even to the extent of requiring the owners and operators to research posts to ensure that they're factual, just like a newspaper or book publisher. There's no middle ground.
Plus, of course, your idea is stupid. Even if users alone could moderate, then either they would battle each other (with different sides deleting the others' posts) and the whole thing would be pointless, or the site is allowed to prefer some users over others, in which case the users will just be specially-selected loyal catspaws of the owners and operators and you'll have the current situation but with an extra step.
Re:Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
OK. Thought experiment: let's say I run a bee-keeping forum. Someone keeps posting about Trump on the forum. I want to remove their comments. If I do that, the forum should lose protections because it's curating content and should be at risk of being sued by the disgruntled poster. Gotcha. Makes total sense.
Re:Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's not just political posts. If I came to your bee-keeping forum and started posting spam ads for herbal viagra, you'd rightly delete my posts. Under Section 230, you couldn't be sued for doing so. However, without Section 230, you're now "curating content" and are opening yourself up to lawsuits - even with the simple act of removing spam posts. So your hypothetical bee keeping forum would quickly be overrun by spammers, scammers, and trolls and you wouldn't be able to do a thing about it lest you open yourself up to legal troubles.
Without Section 230, we'll be left with two types of platforms: Those that turned comments off entirely and those that allow comments without any moderation. The former won't have any conversations and the latter will be too spam filled to have any meaningful conversations.
Re: (Score:3)
So I suspect that's the case here.
These legal standpoint naturally precludes entities which are not aware of everything that goes through their streams.
Re: (Score:3)
Immerman is not suggesting a "fair play" law, they're suggesting that if you "referee" (curate) content at all you don't get protections, but if you don't then you do get protections. They're not saying how to referee it. And since the companies would want protections, they would forego the curation and let the users handle anything like that, so that they're not responsible for it, and not liable for the outcome of it.
This is what allowed the fantastic growth of US-based Internet companies, while parallels in other countries continued to labor under liability for anything randos post to their site. And for most of those countries, it isn't just copyright issues, but liable for truthful but nasty statements about other people, another casualty of a lack of a First Amendment.
Just put the Fairness Doctrine back but as a law rather than a FCC rule. Removing it has allowed the echo chambers we enjoy today ( for both sides).
Re:Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
The statute fails in that it is subjective.
Its goal wasn't to be anything other than subjective; so it's hard to call it a failure.
Basically you can be an editor rather than a content hosting platform and still get protections.
Of course you can- why wouldn't you?
What the hell makes you think there is some magical distinction there?
Section 230 doesn't do anything strange in this regard. It simply applies a basic common law standing rule to the age of the Internet where content ownership is wonkier than in other media.
If they changed it to be defined such as removing illegal content only, then you would remove the subjective part and make it objective and testable in a court of law.
The law need not be tested, because it specifically employs wording which passes any and all tests.
Section 230 is needed but it is also broken.
Section 230 is performing *exactly* as designed after the ruling in Oakmont v. Prodigy- it was written to make that not possible ever again. I.e., that a content provider could not get in trouble for censoring objectionable content on their platform- specifically, content that may not even have anything to do with them, but could only cause them to get embroiled in some other legal battle. It granted carte blanche; exactly as it was designed to do.
Re:Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing to keep in mind, however, is that Section 230 protects those guys too.
Even if the revocation of Section 230 results in good, that doesn't justify the means- which is to give every single entity on the internet a choice:
You allow your forum to become a cesspool of filth, or you're responsible for every single line of content within it.
That isn't a good thing. Nothing at this juncture is preventing complainants from creating their own hosting service. The fact that it isn't as big as facebook isn't our fucking problem. The government doesn't exist to make sure their voice is amplified "fairly"
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, moderation *is* censorship. It's also pretty much essential to maintaining civil discourse in an anonymous forum.
We certainly don't disagree there.
The content that the sites you complained about curate is third-party content; so your false dichotomy between curated third-party content and non-curated presents the exact same consequences to revocation of Section 230 protections.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see any way to clearly define "curation" compared to "moderation" or how that relates to status as a "publisher". Any website that exists, is at some level deciding to publish that content. Websites don't spontaneously appear out of the quantum flux. They maintained by people, with some amount of care and deliberation, to one end or another. As soon as that first character comes in reply to the HTTP request, something has been published.
Re:Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I would not mind seeing section 230 protections removed for sites that curate content, as opposed to just moderating it.
What's the legal difference between "just moderating" and "curating content"? By curating content, do you mean creating it and publishing as an organization (ie newspaper)? What's the legal difference between "just moderating" and "removing spam"? Antimalware and antivirus developers have been sued in courts over removal of malware and even suggesting that some software is malware, when it's backed by a company that has a lawyer in its pocket to do such things - and they have to pay at that point to protect themselves from nonsense suits. The exact same thing will happen to any website that is targeted by an asshole with lawyers, and that's one of the many things which S230 is meant to prevent. Effectively, moderation of content on the web will occur by the assholes with funds to generate baseless suits because by and large standard websites won't be able to afford fending them off, leaving only the large players like Twitter and Facebook around. Imagine these sites where every piece of content that goes on them has to be moderated. Your tweets and FB posts don't go through until someone pushes a key on a keyboard on some other part of the planet. I can't believe any other platform, ie Parler, can go along with this. It will be exactly like how businesses were allowed to survive or not by the local mafia goons in the early 20th century.
In my opinion, these guys are against S230 because it's a shield that allows sites to establish moderation practices which keep them from effectively taking over such sites. Trump, for example, isn't allowed to say whatever he wants without any pushback on Twitter, and he's furious over it. It's not his platform, he doesn't make the rules, and he doesn't understand the concept of general welfare much less people who don't simply do what he says, so he starts with his standard mafia practices of "do what I say or I'm going to burn you down."
Re:Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously I should have been much clearer.
First, let's be clear about what 230 does (and it's very short and clear, I encourage everyone to read it for themselves). It does NOT enable censorship - it just means that you can engage in censorship without becoming liable for everything your *don't* censor. Unlike a newspaper that is legally liable for the contents of every letter to the editor they choose to publish. (yes, that's settled case law). That doesn't mean you have to be fair or uncensored - just look at how heavily biased and censored virtually the entire traditional media landscape is - just that you're liable for libel charges if you publish something *false*. Of course fact-checking every post on a public forum is going to be prohibitively expensive, so in that sense 230 does enable censorship.
Because lets be honest - moderation *is* censorship. But without it the worst scum of trolldom will bury every forum in the world in shit-posts.
So let me be clear - I'm not terribly concerned about censorship - the internet was doing fine under 230 until "social media" came on the scene. And more practically I don't see any way to eliminate it - trying to do so amounts to mandated public speech.
What I am concerned with is the trend toward maximizing user engagement (=profit) through the intentional spreading of outrage-inducing misinformation. Lies have always had an easier time spreading than the truth - they speak directly to our hopes, fears, and preconceived biases. And by profiting from user engagement without any liability for what they use to engage users with, "social media" has become a massive amplifier for those lies.
So, what I propose is:
If you decide what I see next - like Facebook decides the next post I'll see in my feed, then you're curating (publishing) that content and lose 230 protections for it. A publisher decides what content their audience will see, and in what context. Which is what lets sites like Facebook intentionally manipulate mood, credulity, etc.
In contrast, someplace like here the ordering of comments is predetermined by a combination of posting chronology and structure, and viewer-controlled settings. Slashdot does not choose what comment I read next, so they are in fact acting like the mostly-noninterfering communication channels protected by 230, and would still fall under it and be free to censor offending content as they see fit. (wait - do we have a "highest rated first" option? That could reasonably be considered curation - might need to remove that)
And as I see it, there's room for the different aspects of the same site to fall under different rules. Perhaps Slashdot should be held liable for the stories they post. Those are curated, and outsourcing that to the community shouldn't necessarily make a difference. Similarly, if Facbook publishes comments to a post in chronological order, 230 would still applies to those comments, and they'd only liable for the truthfulness of the original posts themselves.
It might also be worth adding in an anti-SLAPP clause - e.g. an accuser must first convince a judge (jury?) that the content is false before they're even allowed to file a libel charge against the publisher. Perhaps with some liability for any judge found to be rubber-stamping such decisions.
Re: (Score:3)
Because lets be honest - moderation *is* censorship.
That is anything but clear. /. is a great example. They rarely delete posts here, and if you browse at -1 you can see everything. While you can choose to engage with the moderation, you can also choose not to.
I don't see that as censorship. The content hasn't gone anywhere. The site owners or their algorithm haven't chosen to delete, promote, or flag certain posts. /.'s moderation is essentially the general public being able to indicate whether or not they like the speech.
Reddit is trickier. They have an ab
Re: (Score:2)
You should have read his link.
Re:Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:5, Interesting)
those sites are simultaneously using it as a shield for their own censorship of views with which they disagree
The law intentionally permits this. The owners and operators of a site get to decide what their standards will be for third party content posted there, and can enforce them. If you don't like it, you go to a different site.
And it works for all kinds of views and information. A religious web forum, for example, could remove posts critical of their religion. A political site can remove posts by their opponents. It is meant to mimic real world practices of free speech and free association in which the owner of private property (whether a clubhouse, auditorium, or website) gets to decide who can and cannot speak there.
Re: (Score:3)
It is meant to mimic real world practices of free speech and free association in which the owner of private property (whether a clubhouse, auditorium, or website) gets to decide who can and cannot speak there.
IMHO there lies the key issue: on the real world this makes sense because you have plenty of public places to host a debate or demonstration and be heard by many, but on the Internet there is actually no real public forum. The main places used as "forums" are private, be them twitter, youtube, slashdot or whatever.
Imagine a country where every street, park or plaza is private and where the owners of these places could dictate which kind of debates or demonstrations can take place there. If they decide your
Re:That's debateable. One legal principle says (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, when you miss the point, you really miss the point.
You're obsessing over 47 USC 230(c)(2)(A).
What you need to read is 47 USC 230(c)(1):
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.
See that? No requirement for good faith, no requirement for objectionable content, and by not being treated as a publisher, they escape liability to third parties since it is always premised on being a publisher.
Subsection (c)(2)(A) is about other, essentially hypothetical, forms of liability, such as perhaps a user suing for breach of contract where it is argued that the site promised to host anything the user posted.
But even under (c)(2)(A) whether matter is 'otherwise objectionable' is utterly subjective. If I had a site that was, for example, pro-Scientology, I could honestly find anti-Scientology posts to be offensive, and so fall under the shelter of (c)(2)(A) when I, in good faith, removed them. (OTOH, if I removed them not due to their content, but because the posters didn't pay a fee to be allowed to post that material, then there would be an argument that the ban was not in good faith)
You should probably read over what the actual authors of the law have to say about it, and what they intended:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09... [cnn.com]
https://www.realclearpolitics.... [realclearpolitics.com]
For starters. it wasn't about porn. In a case of extreme irony, it just sort of got lumped in with an unrelated law that was about porn, and which got overturned as being unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should content have to be objectionable to be removed? In machine learning forums I have been in off topic posts are removed. They are not objectionable content, some of them are just funny jokes or just random off-topic stuff but they still don't belong there.
Off-topic posts are objectionable because they're off-topic. The law doesn't contain the distinction you're trying to draw, and I don't think the distinction is even viable. If I have a pro-Trump forum, I could consider any anti-Trump posts to be off-topic. I could arguably even define the "topic" as "things I like" and remove anything I don't like.
Ejusdem generis constrains the meaning (Score:3)
There is a legal principle called ejusdem generis that applies here.
Suppose a law says auto repair shops must recycle "oil, gasoline, antifreeze, or other fluids".
Ejusdem generis states that although their leftover soda from lunch is an "other fluid", they don't have to recycle it because the list "oil, gasoline, antifreeze" informs the meaning of "other fluids". Terminating a list of automotive liquids, it means "other automotive liquids", not lunch and not air. (Though air is a fluid in the general sense
Re:Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're grossly oversimplifying things. As your link points out, most of the criticism of Section 230 comes from people who just don't understand it. Among those who do understand it and criticize it, it's usually because they are beholden to an electorate that dislikes it because of some misinformation they read on the internet.
From both the characters on the left and the right, the motivation is the same: they think it hurts their cause in some way. Those on the right thinks it prevents their propaganda-style misinformation. Those on the left thinks it facilitates that propaganda-style misinformation. They're both wrong.
Basically, things are the opposite as how you describe them. It's the stupid, misinformed electorate that either votes in stupid, misinformed politicians or votes in politicians who pretend to be stupid and misinformed to pander to their constituents. It's an old cliché on /., but this is clearly a case of stupidity, not malice.
Re: Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:5, Interesting)
But: when you can lose your job because you post something under a pseudonym that doesn't protect you since the antifa working at twityouface tracks down your account and doxes you...well who the hell can look me straight in the eye and say that's a state of affairs worth defending?
Literally every founder of the United States?
I mean- I get the concern, but when ever in the history of ever have you been shielded from the private consequences of your words?
Re: Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no idea what your'e trying to say, however-
Cancel culture sucks.
However, any rule you attempt to apply to curtail it is by definition an inhibition on free speech, as cancel culture is quite literally a manifestation of free speech, a wielding of power of the Fifth Estate.
What you're pissed off about, is that more than 50% of the populace finds your viewpoint reprehensible, and you're pissed off that you can be held accountable for that.
That *does* suck, but that is always as it has been.
When they start passing laws making it illegal to disseminate your opinion, then you can bitch that free speech is dead. Right now, it's simply working against you.
Re: Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:5, Interesting)
No they don't.
No they don't what? Don't find his viewpoint reprehensible? Ya, they probably do.
It used to be called corruption, what you are defending.
That's an outright falsehood... and frankly, stupid. The private sector acting in its own interests has never been called corruption. That's called capitalism.
Umm.... wtf? Section 230 gives freedom from liability of censorship. That has literally never been given to anyone except internet based social platforms? That are new???? WTF are you talking about?
Prior to section 230, that freedom was simply assumed to exist. It was not thought that asserting control over a forum you own, that you would become personally liable for anything anyone else did in that forum.
It came into question with a court ruling against Prodigy.
Congress rectified the situation by passing a statute verifying that, like any other owner of a media- you are allowed to control it.
It passed with only 4 nay votes.
Congress made the right call to nullify a terrible court precedent that had been set, that had never applied to anything anywhere else, ever.
That is clear in the vote tally.
Re: Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
I FULLY support Free Speech.
No, you don't. You like to say you do, but your position literally declares otherwise.
That would be called censorship, and it's already happening today, and is quite effective in not merely silencing certain viewpoints, but demonizing them.
A CEO telling you to fuck off their property isn't censoring you, you crybaby little bitch.
It's their fucking property.
You seek to control what they can do with their property so that you can use their property to amplify your political message? What kind of *stupid* fucking position is that?
Come stand on my lawn and call me an asshole. When I beat the fuck out of you, is it censorship?
It will also be very interesting hearing from the sinful hypocrites when the tables are turned, and they find themselves demonized by their own idiotic standards.
The playground is rough. Yes, the tides of culture can flip on anyone anywhere... but the thing is- you're part of that culture. If your position doesn't suck, the majority will agree with it, and CEOs will have a harder time telling you to get the fuck off of their lawn with your drivel.
Seriously, grow the fuck up.
Re: Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the "populace" is that over 50% of them get butthurt over every damn thing.
It isn't that they get butt hurt about every damn thing, it is that marginalizing groups of people is so common in our society that a lot of reprehensible behavior has been tolerated since the beginning of time. Now that people are being called out on it more frequently, some are finding a huge amount of their beliefs and behaviors are harmful to various marginalized groups in the same society. Just because there is a huge amount of previously normalized behavior which is now rightly considered harmful does not mean all behavior is considered harmful. That is simply a falsehood peddled by people who want an excuse not to improve their behavior.
You can't even cite a statistical fact to these idiots without them wanting to Cancel you and everyone like you.
You can post statistical facts without fear of cancel culture. You just cannot use misleading, incomplete / out of context, or just plain false facts to peddle a false and harmful narrative.
Here is one: the gender pay gap for individuals with similar positions and experience is basically negligible. Perhaps a few percent at best. That is a fact you could post that could receive derision from many people in society. But only if you use it to push a narrative that we are done fighting for gender equality in the workplace (or that it a fight which is nearly won). Only if you ignore that it is still more difficult for women to get into the same positions as men and gain the same experience. Only if you ignore there are many forms of discrimination and micro-aggressions within our society making the workplace harder for women than men.
Uh, no. It has not always been this way.
I agree with you completely there. Certain groups in society enjoying a privileged position over many marginalized groups without much repercussion has been the norm throughout human history. Where we seem to disagree is how society should be working to improve upon this situation.
Re: (Score:3)
"Cancel Culture. THAT is the difference today..."
You mean you being exposed to the same thing you feel entitled to expose others to before? Since when is "cancel culture" something new to today? Ask a victim of lynching if cancel culture didn't exist a century ago.
"A hypocrite will drive a sane person crazy. They're the worst kind of troll to try and reason with. No chance in hell are you going to write rules around them. Rules apply to YOU."
Indeed, and posted without the slightest appreciation for the ir
Re: (Score:3)
Oh the hypocrisy.
If you want Truth and Facts to be respected by others, start by getting your own facts straight first. And that precludes arguing against people on your own side if their facts are bad.
Re: (Score:3)
The right looks at them as not Trump enough. The left looks at them as complicit and not standing up to injustice.
Did anyone in a battleground state miss radio ads run that pointed out your neighbors could see if you voted or not, which is public record (with intimation they could see how as well), so not voting is a vote against Biden, wink wink.
There is disease in this nation which must be rooted out.
Torn. (Score:5, Interesting)
On the one hand, I agree with your sentiment (if I read you correctly). Without that law we-the-people lose the most effective form of free speech that humanity has ever seen. It gets handed over to corporate/government control more-or-less completely. That sure is bad.
On the other hand, social media in practice has been used to give a very impactful platform to the most ignorant, the most radical, and the most malicious elements of our society. Lives of good people have been destroyed by false tweets that stirred up an angry audience, with nothing remotely resembling any kind of justice administration or due process. The court of public opinion has been under the thumb of a small number of motivated trolls.
That sure is bad, too.
I think the blame lies on the widespread lack of critical thinking skills. If basically everyone was smarter and more thoughtful, they would recognize drivel when they see it, on social media, and all of these false-fact whirlwinds would fizzle out before they begin. But that can't and won't happen. So, we have a really dangerous two-edged sword here, and we-the-people have maimed ourselves with it more than once already.
Both options here are bad. Very bad. I don't like either one. But I can't think of any good options that would actually work.
Re:Torn. (Score:4, Insightful)
Does the court of public opinion itself have a chilling effect on free speech? Of course- but it's allowed to. The government is not.
Re: (Score:3)
Both options here are bad. Very bad. I don't like either one. But I can't think of any good options that would actually work.
There is only one, improved education. Educated people don't as readily fall for stupid shit. However, one party has been working hard to pervert education for the purposes of indoctrination, frequently the religious kind which is explicitly constitutionally illegal.
... and then we'll use Freenet (Score:4, Informative)
You'll see massive, industry wide censorship. Sure, you'll still be able to post to your own websites... that no one will read. Or if they do you'll be sued into pulp. Chilling is the word I'd use.
So then we'll just end up using freenet [freenetproject.org] - yeah, it'll suck ass at first, but then will get better.
Re:... and then we'll use Freenet (Score:5, Funny)
yeah, it'll suck ass at first, but then will get better.
And will then evolve exactly into what it replaced. Always fixing the wrong problem, we are.
Idiots are complaining because corporations don't want to host their content, and not-idiots are complaining because idiots are allowed to use the internet.
The solution, is to get rid of the fucking idiots.
You can't have a democracy with a dumbfuck electorate- that was one of the *core* conditions for it.
Re:Section 230 Is The Subject (Score:5, Informative)
Well it's obvious that Trump is doing this purely for selfless motives that are well thought out and researched. No way is it being done to spite Twitter for marking his posts as being potentially untrue, or that social media keeps spreading misinformation about some other guy winning the election. Nope, we should all salute the best world leader in all of world history!
Re: (Score:3)
"Chilling is the word I'd use."
It's not word I'd use. Refreshing would be more likely.
Not long ago there was no social media, or even the internet, yet no one asserted they were "chilled". Instant, convenient access to a megaphone is an entitlement and it is doing great damage to society. In its current form, one can make the argument that we'd be better off without social media entirely, so no, not "chilling", liberating.
"Sure, you'll still be able to post to your own websites... that no one will read."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought it boiled down to:
You thought wrong.
Don't feel bad- there is some invested party trying to make that alternative fact widely believed.
Section 230 protects the host from the consequences of the content regardless of their nature. It imposes no limit on moderation or censorship.
This is while people parrot the bizarre theory that the behavior is illegal, the Republicans in Congress are actually trying to alter the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Chilling that people can't post things they know to be false and misleading?
People will post that anyway, given the chance. The issue is whether the site that it's posted on knows it's false and misleading. If I were to say here that you, Xylantiel, fellate barnyard animals, how the hell could the Slashdot admins verify whether or not that's true? It might be true, after all. Either they're put in the position of having to review and research every post (often for issues they are not equipped to research -- after all, it might have only been that one time) before it goes live,
Re: (Score:3)
no. chilling that websites would have to editorialize everything they allow to be posted. this leaves all websites that allow public posting vulnerable to malicious takedown by posters posting false content. this would be worse, even, than the DMCA.
Spam (Score:2)
So all spam and offtopic posts will have to be allowed, after all something might appear offtopic to someone but on topic to another. For example, if this was a car forum, we should we be able to talk about wheels? Or audio systems. Repealing Section 230 will make it impossible to run an automated forum without the possibility of getting sued. Basically sites like slashdot will not be possible. Is slashdot going to have a human moderate all the posts, and then accept liability when something gets through th
Re: (Score:3)
We have to hear both sides! On one side, you have people discussing the topic. And on the other side you have spambots and trolls.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay. Here's my attempt to play devil's advocate for the other side:
Please, oh please let President Trump get his way on this one. If section 230 is repealed, social media sites will no longer be viable, and people like President Trump will actually have to prove their ability to run the country by appealing to the mainstream media if they ever want to get elected in the future.
How did I do?
Nothing will change (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes the sort of person that wants to sit and read q-anon forums all day will still find them and they will still exist.
Its big social media, facebook twitter, youtube this hits, and probably big traditional media ie can the NYT let users comment on stories etc. You know what NOTHING of value will be lost!
The people running around saying 'but nobody can run forum" etc are wrong. The issues here are really about libel most of the time as far as lawsuits go. Yes the NYT could be sued for editorial content, bec
Oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)
Finally Don would be doing something about the deficit...even if that's not his intention.
I can absolutely GUARANTEE (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly, no one has told Trump this yet.
Obviously, given the inflammatory, threatening and false posts, Trump will be shut out of posting on any platform immediately.
Re:I can absolutely GUARANTEE (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly, no one has told Trump this yet. Obviously, given the inflammatory, threatening and false posts, Trump will be shut out of posting on any platform immediately.
Doesn't matter, he wouldn't really listen. Even if he did, he would really understand. Even if he did, he wouldn't really care. It's not about anything other than him being able to stir the pot, complain and get attention. He'll do that with or without Section 230. He hasn't suffered consequences of any of his words/actions to any real detrimental extent that he would begin to care about anything/one other than himself. Simply put, he's a sociopathic narcissist or a narcissistic sociopath -- whichever one is worse.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't agree.
Trump has a high EQ ("Emotional Intelligence Quotient"). He understands that if his communications are shut off, he won't be able to influence people.
Re: (Score:2)
TBH... The social media companies should go ahead and do this to Trump's accounts proactively, in anticipation of a possible loss of 230 protection. If he wants them back, then he can negotiate and maybe compromise on his ridiculous position.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not how Section 230 works.
Before Section 230 no social media company could be held liable for content. This was a problem because it meant that they had no authority to filter spam, porn, or harassing content. People complained because they didn't want this sent to them. If they filtered anything before Section 230 then if they allowed something "objectionable" through then they become liable just like a newspaper would.
Section 230 was a compromise between these two extremes. It allowed them to f
Re:I can absolutely GUARANTEE (Score:5, Funny)
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THREE YEARS, I HAVE MOD POINTS ON SLASHDOT!!!!
I was going to mod you up, but I must wait for something truly inspiring!!!
I see you're working hard to ensure that you never receive mod points again.
Non partisan (Score:3)
Free Speech (Score:5, Interesting)
If its terminated the courts will likely side with the content host in order to protect free speech, enshrining it under the first amendment forever. That is until it makes it to the stacked supreme court.
Re: (Score:2)
In most cases, even before section 230, common law and other long held legal precedents would prevent hosting providers from being liable for actions performed by their users. But the hosting provider will still have to go to court and spend $100Ks-$1Ms defending themselves it every time someone decides to sue them. With section 230, if someone tries to sue a hosting provider over third party content, the provider can simply file a motion to dismiss right at the beginning, the judge will almost always agree
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
If its terminated the courts will likely side with the content host in order to protect free speech, enshrining it under the first amendment forever. That is until it makes it to the stacked supreme court.
Not sure what you're trying to say, but for the umpteenth time, the concept of free speech and the First Amendment has to do with protection against government infringement. Companies can legally deny their forums/platforms to anyone for any reason. The law as it stands is to protect and/or insulate the companies from their user's posts. Without these protections, companies will simply ban offensive people according to whatever metric they want weighed against profitability -- which they can do now, but are protected if they don't.
Trump thinks he'll have Twitter over a barrel w/o Section 230, but they'll simply drop him; he'll sue them for "censorship" and lose because Twitter is a company, not the government, and it's their playground. Sure, Twitter may lose something in the court of public opinion, but they'll get over it. In any case, he'll get the attention he craves, which is all this is really about.
Ain’t gonna happen (Score:2)
Several Republicans have already bluntly rejected Trump’s demand. And it’s not as if the Democrats are going to support him...
Re: (Score:2)
It sure sounds like he hasn't thought this through very well.
What has he? (seriously)
"... or I'll defund the military!" (Score:2)
so trump does not support the troops & draft d (Score:2)
so trump does not support the troops & did draft dodging ok.
Just repeat that each time you say any thing if you want to go down this route
Oh no... (Score:2)
We won't just pour money into a system that desperately modernization and streamlining for two months. Yep, that'll get them into line.
Congress can override the veto ... (Score:2)
... or simply ride out a shutdown until Biden shows up.
National Security (Score:2)
Trump in his tweet linked S230 with National Security... Can anyone explain his thinking here? How is S230 a National Security Issue?
Re: (Score:2)
In Trump's mind "National Security" is a magical incantation that grants him unlimited power.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait that almost sounds like Fascism
Re: (Score:2)
Wait that almost sounds like Fascism
To his followers, it sounds like Freedom -- but, for the rest of us, not the good kind.
Re: (Score:3)
The actual sequence of events is something that I guess most media has decided is too crass to continue discussing openly. Although Trump has railed against Section 230 in the past, his latest tantrum is the result of a trending hashtag on Twitter, #DiaperDon. This article from the Independent [independent.co.uk] summarizes the sequence of events, but if you're not inclined to trust that particular outlet for whatever reason I exhort you to confirm it yourself; it's entirely trivial to verify.
If that reaction seems disproporti
Oh FUCK YOU, Trump. (Score:2)
Congress needs to override any veto he issues on this.
Re: (Score:2)
has anyone ever tried just ignoring that racist, serial rapist mouth-breather? seriously. if we ignore him he'll eventually go away, fading into obscurity as the worst president ever - until the next republican administration.
Fat Chance (Score:2)
It will take the GOP less than .2 seconds to decide to join with the Democrats and override his veto.
Georgia has an upcoming election to decide control of the Senate, "Defund the military" is not the slogan Republicans want to run on.
Section 230 (Score:2)
Section 230 is not about hosting your own content. Section 230 is for user generated content. That is Facebook posts, tweets, video comments, and yes discussions here on Slashdot and every other site.
Section 230 is gone = user generated content is gone.
After that all would have to be heavily moderated by humans. And I think only three kinds will survive:
- Big companies with deep pockets (ironically, they would be free to do any kind of curation they want at that point)
- Small personal blogs which can modera
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like (Score:5, Insightful)
Section 230 will be replaced with the DMCA (Score:3)
His feelings are more important than defense (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
and not to be taken as statements of fact nor are they presented that way
If more people remembered that ALL social media falls under that category the world would be a lot better off. If I click on one more "news" article that's 3 sentences of news and 2 pages of Twitter reactions I'm going to puke.
Re:Over simplified (Score:4, Funny)
"crazy democrat shit" . . .thank you for clarifying
Let's see if I've got the math right here. Username: Orgasmatron + UID: 8103 + Post: Defends Trump = 60 year old incel
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Over simplified (Score:5, Informative)
Such as?
Perhaps you are referring to the liability protections that they are trying to gift to businesses: oh, wait, no. It's Moscow Mitch who is trying to push that.
Or perhaps you are referring to the removal of the names of traitors from military bases? I can't imagine how anyone could object to that unless they are a virulent white supremacist. That's something that has already passed the House and Senate, but Trump is objecting to it.
Re:Over simplified (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps you are referring to the removal of the names of traitors from military bases? I can't imagine how anyone could object to that unless they are a virulent white supremacist.
I can't imagine how anyone would think that unless they were an hopelessly ignorant left wing agitator, or incapable of understanding nuance or anything about history and things that drive people.
Yes the civil war was primarily about slavery. Denying that is silly. That is however NOT at all what led the typical enlisted man to join and fight for the rebel army. Its not why men like R.E Lee or Jackson or Hood decided fight for the confederacy either. To brand these men as mere traitors is a moronic reductionist viewpoint. Geeze watch a little PBS for crying out loud even Ken Burns would tell you that before the Civil War people did not see themselves as American but at Virginian's, Kentuckians etc.
You doubtless hold some of our elements of national policy to be abhorrent. Do you believe that makes the men and women serving in our military today wicked? Its the same thing!
Re:Over simplified (Score:5, Insightful)
They may not have been "mere" traitors, but they were traitors nonetheless. They fought a war of sedition against the United States of America. They killed US soldiers. They fought a war to defend slavery, which is antithetical to the words of our founding documents. People have been hung as traitors for much less. Plus, let's not forget, they got their asses beat. On top of everything else, they were losers. They lost a war to the United States of America.
There's no reason to name United States military bases after men who killed members of the United States military.
Re:Over simplified (Score:5, Interesting)
Following this logic, the entire Continental Army were traitors.
They were- that's absolutely undeniable.
They fought a war of sedition against Great Briton.
They did. What's your point?
The only difference was these traitors won their battle, therefore they became Patriots instead.
Yes, that is precisely the difference. The laws that applied to them became their own, because they won their independence.
The Confederacy did not.
If I declare my lawn to be my own country, and that murder is legal there, and then kill you, I had better be able to back that up, because if I can't- I'm just a fucking criminal. That is how it works, period. That is the price of declaring that the law you are bound to no longer applies to you.
Might doesn't make right, but it damn well decides what is legal.
Here, today, we are the United States. They lost, and they are therefor traitors.
British can call us traitors... but since they lost, it's kind of laughable, since we proved that we were de facto not bound by their laws.
We asserted that we were no longer Citizens of Great Britain, and therefor its laws for Treason did not apply to us. Great Britain disagreed with us, but ultimately lost the argument.
As for your Stanford scholar's opinion? Spare me.
Jefferson wasn't a fucking idiot. If he had meant, "All nations are created equal" it is what he would have written.
Re:Over simplified (Score:5, Insightful)
Following this logic, the entire Continental Army were traitors. They fought a war of sedition against Great Briton. They killed British soldiers. The only difference was these traitors won their battle, therefore they became Patriots instead. Luckily we had an undivided United States during WWII or things might have turned out differently.
Yes they are traitors to the British, which is why Britain doesn't have military bases named after Nathanael Greene, Henry Knox and others. Because it would be extremely dumb.
Re: (Score:3)
But it WOULD be hilarious.
Re: (Score:3)
They are by definition, traitors. They were U.S. citizens who took up arms against it. The fact that they were citizens of one of the many states is irrelevant. Their action was not legal to the rules of the country they belonged to. As the Confederacy was never recognized as a country, they were merely traitors. That's how it works. That's why you don't want to lose that fight
Re: (Score:3)
That isnt clear at all.
Yes, it is.
Again these people were citizens of their states first citizens of the US second. Which what the founders intended. We were supposed to be a nation of 50 States big 'S'. There was no solid legal basis for denying States rights to leave the Untied States, other than Lincoln and his supporters said 'no'.
This is flat out wrong. Fabricated. Horse shit wouldn't be too critical a description.
The Constitutional Convention of 1789 made it quite clear that operating as separate states was not working, and the Confederacy formed under the Articles of Confederation was proposed to be dissolved, and replaced with a strong Federal Government under the US Constitution.
The debates are open for any to read. Do some, and come back. I'll gladly debate you when you're not injecting weird beliefs you have with
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't imagine how anyone would think that unless they were an hopelessly ignorant left wing agitator, or incapable of understanding nuance or anything about history and things that drive people.
Yes the civil war was primarily about slavery. Denying that is silly. That is however NOT at all what led the typical enlisted man to join and fight for the rebel army. Its not why men like R.E Lee or Jackson or Hood decided fight for the confederacy either. To brand these men as mere traitors is a moronic reductionist viewpoint. Geeze watch a little PBS for crying out loud even Ken Burns would tell you that before the Civil War people did not see themselves as American but at Virginian's, Kentuckians etc.
You doubtless hold some of our elements of national policy to be abhorrent. Do you believe that makes the men and women serving in our military today wicked? Its the same thing!
All well and good, but the hijacking of the truth about what Grant endured as President after the civil war was the start of the long and sad decline of sensible democratic governance of how to deal with the fact that slavery was an evil that must be abolished at all cost everywhere. An action that was bound to cause social upheaval that would need measures of compassion not belligerent derision and denial by the surviving participants and their descendants.
Unfortunately the US largely went the way of Sout
Re: (Score:3)
Hood and Bragg were hands down the worst commanders in the war.
Which is why it's laughable to claim that their name is on those installations to hail them as accomplished Americans in any way, shape, or form.
Re: (Score:3)
Both of them actually.
Hood and Bragg were hands down the worst commanders in the war.
Which is why it's laughable to claim that their name is on those installations to hail them as accomplished Americans in any way, shape, or form.
Don't forget Polk and A P Hill (although Hill really just sucked as a Corps commander but was a decent brigade/division commander)
Re: (Score:2)
NDAA has been around since 1961. This is just the normal setting of the military budget.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... what Congress needs is a way to "put on hold" a bill that is ready for a full vote and just have the final vote to approve the bill at a specified time in the future immediately in both houses, even if its in a new session - then when a leaving president threatens a veto.. Put the bill away for 60 days, instead of sending it to be veto'd, and take the bill right back up immediately after the changeover.