Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
New legislation should not be needed... just a administrative interpretation of 230 as it is. Pointing out it was about obscenity.. and it is not being used as such.. ergo the tech companies are legally publishers until they come into compliance with 230.
Hey, if ATF can interpret the legal definition of "machinegun" to include a silly plastic toy used to effectively jerk off a rifle, DoJ should be able to massage whatever statute they like into saying political censorship is illegal.
The problem is, Section 230 is a liability shield for when someone posts child porn on Facebook. It doesn't say that Facebook CANNOT remove non-child-porn posts, it just says that as long as they remove child porn posts when notified, that they aren't liable for it.
Section 230(c):
(2): "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—"
(A): "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be [...] harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or" (emphasis added)
Translation: you can censor the fuck out of whomever you want, as long as anyone on the planet finds it objectionable, and there is no affirmative duty to censor evenhandedly or fairly.
You aren't acting in good faith when you hire foreign ultra-leftists to form a council that decides to censor only conservatives and skeptics based on tenuous, imaginary grounds while also openly endorsing or ignoring provably and clearly murderous ideologies and terrorism and child sexual grooming.
In case not trolling: What is a Breakfast Stout Beer? Breakfast Stout is an oatmeal stout brewed with Kona and Sumatran coffee and a generous amount of chocolate
Barr can’t win with the black pilled among us. News this big, and it’s “muh...Barr arrest somebody.” It’s like some can’t take good news. I think this is amazing!
Because the election is in 6 weeks? What good does a fucking proposal or strongly-worded letter do when the election is going to be STOLEN from under us?
Yes, arrests need to happen because they NEEDED to happen for three years now.
The senate is, too. At best the 95+ of them are Uniparty grifters. Congress is an inept and defunct body and no one cares. Most of the same clowns will be elected again bc primarying competent representative is too hard for us as citizens.
Since you mentioned it, there's something that's been bugging me.
What if these RINOs decide to withdraw their 'yes' votes for the SC nominee after the October surprise comes out? They likely already know what that surprise is gonna be and it just bugs me.
Romney in particular would love to pull that rug out from under POTUS. Total snake.
So much tech money goes into Dems and Rep reelection campaigns. They play both sides. Both houses are bought and paid for. Nothing will happen until campaign finance reform becomes an issue.
Why don't you give your congress critter a call ? Use your time for that instead of typing out your doomsday comments meant to keep us all feeling helpless.
We need to take over Tiktok and make it a conservative social media platform. That way, we can shape the next generation. (Most Tiktok users are young)
Facebook is now for old folks (though for how long until they leave in disgust is anyone's guess.) Twatter only really exists because GEOTUS uses it (otherwise it'd be about as relevant as MySpace - 'member them?) Instagram and Snapchat are on the downturn as well. There's also the somewhat-still-used Disqus, though 90% of that is nothing more than a dumping ground for sex-spam bots and shitposting.
The new sweet hotness vehicles? Twitch, Discord, shit like that.
Meanwhile, I'm old enough to have used USENET and IRC on the regular... (USENET and NNTP still exist, but mostly as a subscription service these days, since no ISP really bothers with providing USENET service anymore. IRC is a crap-shoot, but I hadn't tried in years).
We had them, still have them as valid protocols, and to some extent they still exist and get used today: NNTP/USENET, IRC, Archie, Gophernet...
Seriously, all were decentralized (especially USENET), didn't rely on any one vendor or network (any routable protocol could use it), and nobody owned it. Slap a web interface on any of those, and * poof *, there's yer decentralized social tech.
The CCP would never let anyone control their algorithm. Social media platforms choose what content to send to who and in what pattern. That is what is really happening with all these "media" systems.
It's actually a much more effective platform than you might think. They have done several things with it that are pretty different than what's been done before. It's very possible for a complete unknown to go super viral - and that's an amazingly strong draw. Also the way that you can have memes to respond to memes is pretty impressive.
I'm not saying I'm a fan - or even a user - but it is worth understanding what makes it so attractive to so many.
Okay, just read it. Not exactly a legal expert but to my unprofessional eye the most important section is the final section titled "Good Faith". which seem to boil down to...
Subsection A: ToS needs to explain what the criteria is for bans
Subsection B: Restrictions need to be consistent with the ToS (ie: "Borderline Content" can't just be made up out of thin air)
Subsection C: Restictions have to be applied uniformly (can't ignore BLM & Islamic groups while going over Crowder with a fine-toothed comb)
Subsection D: Must tell people why they are being banned and give them a "meaningful opportunity to respond"
Now I just wish I understood what it means when the DOJ proposes secion 230 Reform. Who has to approve that? Congress? Executive branch? This is why regulations are so frustrating.
Today, on behalf of the Trump Administration, the Department of Justice sent draft legislation to Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
(bold mine)
Since Congress won't act, the DOJ went ahead and sent a draft bill to Congress. Which may get to committee, but don't hold your breath, because Congress doesn't like when other people do their job for them. But it lights a fire under them, if some powerful GOP Congress members adopt it and put their names on it.
You know lobbyists are screaming down the phone lines to their pet legislators to make sure this is blocked.
That's about what I got from it. A platform has to define what is and is not allowed, then follow those guidelines. They also have to provide a reporting mechanism.
It's about as effective as a "strongly worded letter".
What I didn't like is the earlier sections which make it a crime to allow publishing of content you know is illegal. Normally that sounds good, but then you consider Wikileaks or Snowden. Now the Feds have a stronger case for going after platforms which publish classified information which details illegal govt activity.
Easy to subvert. Just make right-wing content as the ones that bannable in the TOS. Instead of it being an open secret, make it into writing. What can these (((politicians))) do anyways?
A hugely important additional edit is striking the "otherwise objectionable" language which has allowed safe space SJWs to define anything even slightly contrasting against their views to be objectionable and thus fair game to censor.
Hey, you’re supposed to be a jingo on this forum, not think for yourself and be objective.
Here’s what Gab has to say about your freedom of speech....
The Justice Department asked Congress today to adopt a new law that would water down Section 230 of the CDA, a cornerstone for protecting free speech online. This is a horrible idea and will inevitably harm alternative technology startups like Gab in the long run while solidifying Big Tech's control over the flow of information online. This is precisely why both establishment Democrats and Republicans are pushing for this effort together. There is very little that the left and right agree on these days, yet they both seem to agree on destroying Section 230 in order to retain their control over the narrative online.
In a free country a corporation should be free to be biased. For example Apple censors music to comply with Chinese Communists. Twitter lets Pakistan tell it what users around the world, including Americans, can and can’t say. Gab is biased towards American law and freedom.
Section 230 says nothing about political neutrality, and for good reason. Who defines “neutrality” and better yet who enforces it? Any proposal to add a “neutrality” clause to Section 230 would be unconstitutional. It would require the government to police the speech of corporations and infringe on their first amendment rights.
Section 230 protects technology companies, including Gab, from being held liable for the speech others. It does NOT prevent them from exercising their own free speech rights, nor should it. The text of Section 230 is very clear: companies that act in good faith to remove content that they themselves find “objectionable” or that their users find “objectionable” whether or not that content is constitutionally protected, are shielded from being held liable for the speech of their users.
When Big Tech platforms “fact-check” posts or “editorialize” content Section 230 does not apply to that speech. That speech is them speaking, not a user. Section 230 does not prevent them from being held liable for their own speech.
Meaning if they defame someone using their speech legal action can be taken against them. If someone else defames a person on their platform, Section 230 protects the technology company from being held liable for the speech of that other person. This isn’t complicate if you read the text. Many of you may not like the way that Big Tech is exercising their free speech. I know I don’t. Which is why we started Gab back in 2016 as an alternative to Big Tech tyranny.
If you don’t like what Big Tech has to say, if you don’t like their “Community Guidelines,” and if you don’t like their moderation choices the solution is to get on Gab.com and other alternative technology platforms that support and share your values. Period.
Gab is thriving because we don’t patrol legal speech which is protected by American speech laws, particularly the first amendment and rulings on it. Gab is a threat because we violate the unspoken rule, shared by all big tech companies, media elites, and members of Congress, that every user of the Internet must be subject to aggressive content moderation, which in our experience, users hate.
From our standpoint, the mobile app ecosystems are the biggest choke point, particularly with Apple which does not permit iPhone users to direct-download third party applications to their phones. Apple and Google have an unquestionable duopoly on mobile app distribution with 98% marketshare. This where the DOJ's focus should be.
We believe the big tech companies have sufficiently close connections between them that they can and do collude to remove competitors. Gab is the perfect example of this abuse of market power in action, being banned by both Apple and Google app stores for refusing to censor “offensive” speech. Of course anyone who has ever visited Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit knows that there is plenty of “offensive” speech on those websites, yet they are allowed to remain on both app stores due to their close partnerships with Apple and Google.
Apple should lose its stranglehold over what apps users can download on iPhones, Google should be broken up, and the individual corporate officers responsible for these anticompetitive practices should be individually punished.
Google is a vast repository of private information and we believe that their App Store dominance is only one small part of their anticompetitive activity across the wider economy – which includes dominance over SEO, advertising and the flow of dollars to online publishers, as evidenced by a recent $1.7 billion antitrust fine levied against Google by European regulators.
We believe that an antitrust investigation of these companies will reveal all manner of anticompetitive conduct in areas as diverse as search ranking, advertising, mobile app distribution, browser bundling, and even browser performance.
If the Republicans, President Trump, and the DOJ want to stop Big Tech bias, watering down Section 230 of the CDA is not the answer. Taking antitrust action against the anticompetitive and monopolistic behavior of Silicon Valley while joining and supporting alternative technology platforms like Gab.com and others is.
Yeah it even says in this that the legislation is what executes Trump's EO re: online censorship. Uhhhh so Trump's EOs don't matter until Congress says so? Someone call Obama and tell him about his EO on DACA being void...
Does it involve a whole lot of REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE?
What? All the bill says you have to enforce any ToS equally. You can still put "right wingers fuck off" into your ToS and be gucci. Is the problem with the wording in the ToS or is the problem with the fucking censorship?
If I'm reading this correctly, and I've only skimmed it, it's legislation clarifying what social media platforms can and can't do with material posted on their sites. If they remove content because it doesn't fit their narrative, they can be prosecuted. They can also be held liable for people coordinating riots and other crimes.
Hasn't passed yet, though. Let's hope we retake Congress so we can ram this down Silicon Valley's throat.
Facebook and Twitter don't get to hide under the guise of a platform, and instead are now marked as publishers. A platform is a place that anyone can upload content and that content is theirs and not the platforms. A publisher is similar in that you can upload to it just like a platform, however the publisher decides what to do with that content once it is on their site. Beforehand, social media was saying that they were removing things that violated their terms of service, so they could still act as a platform. This specifically came from the the phrasing "otherwise objectionable" in Section 2, subparagraph A, which allowed platforms to decide what exactly "otherwise objectionable" meant whenever they pleased. Now, based on the rewritten legislation, it removes that wording entirely, and now makes platforms have to prove that they are acting in good faith when removing content. If they cannot prove that they removed the content for a good reason, they stand to lose their platform status and become a publisher. If they become a publisher, it is GAME OVER for them as ALL CONTENT THEY HOST, THEY BECOME LIABLE FOR. Child porn, terrorist orgs using twitter as a propaganda platform, social media censoring free speech. Any laws violated by their users, they become responsible for too when they decide what can and cannot be allowed on their website.
Precisely. The new language states it as "in good faith" and then goes on to describe what that is, as well as what bad faith is. The only way to be considered doing something in good faith would be if the content being removed is illegal, or if it goes against the companies terms of service. Now the kicker is that they cannot put obscene ToS in place, less they want to be marked a publisher. So now they're in a pickle: either go all out and become a publisher and allow the government to take you down, or stay as a platform and allow all discourse to be had on their site. Beautiful, isn't it?
Well they technically could still ban conservatives as long as their TOS says they're going to ban conservatives. Kinda like how ours says Trump supporters only.
Section 230 provides liability coverage for 'platforms' like facebook, twitter, etc, which makes them not responsible for what users post. It'd be impossible to operate a platform without that coverage, as lawsuits would roll in every time some a-hole made a slanderous comment towards another. This would bankrupty the platform in litigation costs. So 230 is well intentioned, and without something similar we wouldn't have some of the nice platforms we do have. BUUUUUT, these platforms have acted in bad faith, moderating content in extremely lopsided manner to where they suppress conservative speech and promote lefty speech (silencing posts, faking twitter trends, for example). These reforms attempt to say "You can moderate, but you must be fair and consistent. And if you do not stay fair and consistent, you will lose liability protection". Basically telling them to be fair or fuck off.
So 230 is well intentioned, and without something similar we wouldn't have some of the nice platforms we do have.
Not true. These platforms could exist where you self-publish and they amplify it - like what cloudfare does for thedonald.win - so that you don't need a terabit internet connection.
They don't do this because 230 let's them get away with hosting your content instead of amplifying it, and that lets them censor and monopolize your content.
Well if we take the time to write some good laws, when the time comes and we have the votes, we can get it done. Either that or we get some sort of agreements with these companies or its monopoly busting time.
It is attempting to fix the paradox of companies like Google, facebook, twitter from being able to act like platform while still retaining the protections of a publisher. Right now the tech giants all use a loop hole in the old section 230 to protect themselves while they do as they please. If this goes through it will force these companies to change how they deal with content. Hopefully it will force them declare as publisher with full editorial control over what gets posted or a platform which allows anyone to post anything as long as it does not break any laws (or terms of service because muh private companies).
From what ive heard, the idea is that 230 reform would mean that tech companies wouldnt be liable for anything said on their platforms. The theory is that the reason conservatives are being censored is because advertisers are saying they dont want to be on controversial content. So when advertisers or activist complain about content, the tech companies can point to the law and say there's nothing they can do about it
It's now or never. Protect free speech on the last place it has or give every single powerful tech company full control of the narrative. Reform it! Confirm the next scotus! Goddamn voter id!
And you'll never hear about these happenings unless you have access to alternative news found only in the corners of the internet. Change is happening behind closed doors, the silent majority is growing. Trump 2Q2Q.
What are the odds it gets through the House though? Dems will see this as taking away big techs ability to moderate in their favor and force more fair moderation. While I love the concept, I don't see it getting passed.
Yeah i dont like this language either. Doesn't seem to do anything like the top comments are suggesting. My reading came to the same conclusion as you, plus they add a provision that you have to notify someone specifically why their content was removed... unless its, according to the platform, "illegal" or "harmful". Well fucking great, so carry on as before and be sure to cite the hurt fee-fees when someone says they didn't receive proper notice. Its like Jack Dipshey wrote this fucker himself.
If there was no section 230, it means every website would be responsible for all the of the content posted. The big tech cos can still afford teams of moderators, but a smaller competitor would have no chance.
I.e., I set up a small website, and a user posts something illegal. Now I'm 100% responsible for it. I'd have to manually review every single post, which means creating a new reddit or facebook or twitter would be impossible.
Andrew Torba seems to think this is bad legislation that will hurt free speech online. Copy/pasting the email from Gab for anyone who missed it:
The Justice Department asked Congress today to adopt a new law that would water down Section 230 of the CDA, a cornerstone for protecting free speech online. This is a horrible idea and will inevitably harm alternative technology startups like Gab in the long run while solidifying Big Tech's control over the flow of information online. This is precisely why both establishment Democrats and Republicans are pushing for this effort together. There is very little that the left and right agree on these days, yet they both seem to agree on destroying Section 230 in order to retain their control over the narrative online.
In a free country a corporation should be free to be biased. For example Apple censors music to comply with Chinese Communists. Twitter lets Pakistan tell it what users around the world, including Americans, can and can’t say. Gab is biased towards American law and freedom.
Section 230 says nothing about political neutrality, and for good reason. Who defines “neutrality” and better yet who enforces it? Any proposal to add a “neutrality” clause to Section 230 would be unconstitutional. It would require the government to police the speech of corporations and infringe on their first amendment rights.
Section 230 protects technology companies, including Gab, from being held liable for the speech others. It does NOT prevent them from exercising their own free speech rights, nor should it. The text of Section 230 is very clear: companies that act in good faith to remove content that they themselves find “objectionable” or that their users find “objectionable” whether or not that content is constitutionally protected, are shielded from being held liable for the speech of their users.
When Big Tech platforms “fact-check” posts or “editorialize” content Section 230 does not apply to that speech. That speech is them speaking, not a user. Section 230 does not prevent them from being held liable for their own speech.
Meaning if they defame someone using their speech legal action can be taken against them. If someone else defames a person on their platform, Section 230 protects the technology company from being held liable for the speech of that other person. This isn’t complicate if you read the text. Many of you may not like the way that Big Tech is exercising their free speech. I know I don’t. Which is why we started Gab back in 2016 as an alternative to Big Tech tyranny.
If you don’t like what Big Tech has to say, if you don’t like their “Community Guidelines,” and if you don’t like their moderation choices the solution is to get on Gab.com and other alternative technology platforms that support and share your values. Period.
Gab is thriving because we don’t patrol legal speech which is protected by American speech laws, particularly the first amendment and rulings on it. Gab is a threat because we violate the unspoken rule, shared by all big tech companies, media elites, and members of Congress, that every user of the Internet must be subject to aggressive content moderation, which in our experience, users hate.
From our standpoint, the mobile app ecosystems are the biggest choke point, particularly with Apple which does not permit iPhone users to direct-download third party applications to their phones. Apple and Google have an unquestionable duopoly on mobile app distribution with 98% marketshare. This where the DOJ's focus should be.
We believe the big tech companies have sufficiently close connections between them that they can and do collude to remove competitors. Gab is the perfect example of this abuse of market power in action, being banned by both Apple and Google app stores for refusing to censor “offensive” speech. Of course anyone who has ever visited Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit knows that there is plenty of “offensive” speech on those websites, yet they are allowed to remain on both app stores due to their close partnerships with Apple and Google.
Apple should lose its stranglehold over what apps users can download on iPhones, Google should be broken up, and the individual corporate officers responsible for these anticompetitive practices should be individually punished.
Google is a vast repository of private information and we believe that their App Store dominance is only one small part of their anticompetitive activity across the wider economy – which includes dominance over SEO, advertising and the flow of dollars to online publishers, as evidenced by a recent $1.7 billion antitrust fine levied against Google by European regulators.
We believe that an antitrust investigation of these companies will reveal all manner of anticompetitive conduct in areas as diverse as search ranking, advertising, mobile app distribution, browser bundling, and even browser performance.
If the Republicans, President Trump, and the DOJ want to stop Big Tech bias, watering down Section 230 of the CDA is not the answer. Taking antitrust action against the anticompetitive and monopolistic behavior of Silicon Valley while joining and supporting alternative technology platforms like Gab.com and others is.
IOW, if this is done right and is a benefit to only the American people, Gab will fade into irrelevance. They can only compete right now because the don't censor. If FB and Twatter are forced to either be publishers or platforms, they won't be allowed to censor meaning things go back to pre 2015 era where you can say whatever. Gab only came about because of censorship and only exists because of it. Without tech companies doing it, they lose all reason to exist.
This isn't a link to the proposal itself, it is a summary of the proposal. Not too terrible of a read. But the super short TLDR is that social media companies should not be allowed to censor legal online speech/content, and should be punished for actively allowing or facilitating illegal activity on their websites.
All this is going to do is be used against us. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. This will be nothing but another excuse for these people to remove thoughts they don't like.
So if I’m reading this right.... websites will be able to censor what they please but the terms have to be clearly stated in the TOS and be done evenly?
Better but still pretty weak. Things like "extremist group" not defined simply means they're going to continue calling Trump/conservatives/Christians/etc "extremists" and keep doing what they're doing.
Disqualification for content provider is contributing or significantly modifying user content. I don't think deleting falls under here. Neither does fudging their trends since that is aggregated data they produce.
We therefore urge Congress to make these necessary reforms to Section 230 and begin to hold online platforms accountable both when they unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online
"Urge Congress" Now just weeks before the election you finally bring this up and want to urge the congress whose House is controlled by the crypt keeper Nancy Piglousy to do something? What a joke.
As there ever been a more useless document put out by the DOJ to cover their ass for not doing anything? Bushie Barr strikes again.
I am not sure this will help us at all, it looks as if there are no teeth at all in this.. AND there are WAY to many loopholes for in my uneducated viewpoint...
Would've been helpful BEFORE voting began, but I will take it. If it even happens. They should all get slapped with massive fines and lawsuits for pretending not to EDIT. Everyone knows they obviously 100% DO.
Need legal protections for free speech. No more corporate retributions by companies like Costco because someone said something that hurt their fee fees.
And lets be specific, the "bad words" this person uttered were not directed at Costco, anyone who worked at Costco, but just were not deemed "acceptable" speech by the fascists who are in-charge at the Costco corporate.
If someone goes around talking trash about Costco or their management and does business with Costco, then no protections unless what they are saying is something factual like Costco sold outdated food or something.
This could be a first approach to solve Section 230 loopholes. Reading the draft it seems they focused on the main issues, i.e. ISIS propaganda on YT, FB and Twitter; CP networks; sites that host any illegal content (TPB, Megaupload).
There's no mention of political censorship or anti-conservative bias.
Draft Leglislation: https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download
OMG. ITS HAPPENING!
Leaning your way.
New legislation should not be needed... just a administrative interpretation of 230 as it is. Pointing out it was about obscenity.. and it is not being used as such.. ergo the tech companies are legally publishers until they come into compliance with 230.
Hey, if ATF can interpret the legal definition of "machinegun" to include a silly plastic toy used to effectively jerk off a rifle, DoJ should be able to massage whatever statute they like into saying political censorship is illegal.
The problem is they are not interpreting 230 to mean... what 230 means...
*or a shoestring
The problem is, Section 230 is a liability shield for when someone posts child porn on Facebook. It doesn't say that Facebook CANNOT remove non-child-porn posts, it just says that as long as they remove child porn posts when notified, that they aren't liable for it.
Section 230(c):
Translation: you can censor the fuck out of whomever you want, as long as anyone on the planet finds it objectionable, and there is no affirmative duty to censor evenhandedly or fairly.
You aren't acting in good faith when you hire foreign ultra-leftists to form a council that decides to censor only conservatives and skeptics based on tenuous, imaginary grounds while also openly endorsing or ignoring provably and clearly murderous ideologies and terrorism and child sexual grooming.
I agree, messing with section 230 could have consequences for online freedom. Maybe setting in stone the good faith clause would be enough.
KEK
Any minute now
It's literally in the link of this post. 2nd paragraph.
kek
Big Tech: “Then we will control conservative speech in the shade!”
“...or give zero fucks about this, either way.”
indictments any day now
In case not trolling: What is a Breakfast Stout Beer? Breakfast Stout is an oatmeal stout brewed with Kona and Sumatran coffee and a generous amount of chocolate
Trust the plan!
Barr can’t win with the black pilled among us. News this big, and it’s “muh...Barr arrest somebody.” It’s like some can’t take good news. I think this is amazing!
Because the election is in 6 weeks? What good does a fucking proposal or strongly-worded letter do when the election is going to be STOLEN from under us?
Yes, arrests need to happen because they NEEDED to happen for three years now.
personally, I worry that we could basically uproot progressivism and some people wouldn't notice because no one got perp-walked.
Barr just said not my problem, let the swamp vote on it, and you get a boner lol.
Probably because Barr is a staunch deep state defender.
It’s over, Google! I have the high ground!
No doubt. It's pathetic really. The mom programming runs deep and even infects pedes
Senator Lindsey Grandma
That hit me funny lol
She wouldn't be bad looking if she grew her hair out.
"Breaking Special Report Update" - Larry King
But why won't they. Don't most republicans understand the crazy bias going on? I guess they don't care since they are paid off?
Congress is democrat.
The House is, at least. They're working harder than ever to keep stealing House seats and going for stealing the Senate.
We badly need ballot harvesting ruled illegal everywhere.
The senate is, too. At best the 95+ of them are Uniparty grifters. Congress is an inept and defunct body and no one cares. Most of the same clowns will be elected again bc primarying competent representative is too hard for us as citizens.
Since you mentioned it, there's something that's been bugging me.
What if these RINOs decide to withdraw their 'yes' votes for the SC nominee after the October surprise comes out? They likely already know what that surprise is gonna be and it just bugs me.
Romney in particular would love to pull that rug out from under POTUS. Total snake.
Republicans had two years to get it done. They failed.
The dirty secret is that the Uniparty cucks are salivating at the prospect of tech being on the other foot so that THEY can use it.
Draining the swamp is more important than ever. I hope your local primaries paid off in getting MAGA candidates on the ballots.
The house is Democrat and hopefully that's only going to be for two more months
How many seats can we get?
According to Time Travelling Baron Trump, in his 3rd term GEOTUS declares that he is the Senate and we get them all.
for another 41 days. (unless the fraud is successful)
You do realize that the new House doesn’t sit until Jan, right?
True, but by Nov 4th (Lord willing) they'll be lame-duck, the Senate will stop them cold, and it won't really matter all that much.
I was referring to Nov. 3rd.
Congress voted for every tyrannical law we now have in place.
Something tells me they don't really give a fuck.
So much tech money goes into Dems and Rep reelection campaigns. They play both sides. Both houses are bought and paid for. Nothing will happen until campaign finance reform becomes an issue.
1-202-224-3121
Why don't you give your congress critter a call ? Use your time for that instead of typing out your doomsday comments meant to keep us all feeling helpless.
Good point doc.
OMG. IT’S NEVER HAPPENING!
-FTFY
X to doubt
TWITTER WILL BE GONE OR IT WILL BECOME BLUE 4CHAN
We need to take over Tiktok and make it a conservative social media platform. That way, we can shape the next generation. (Most Tiktok users are young)
That's what everyone said about snapchat, instagram, facebook twitter
And very few people use snapchat now compared to 2 years ago. I personally have never used instagram and got rid of Facebook years ago.
So yeah, things move very quickly now.
You must be a boomer
No, all the boomers are on Facebook
snapchat and facebook are dead.
Facebook is now for old folks (though for how long until they leave in disgust is anyone's guess.) Twatter only really exists because GEOTUS uses it (otherwise it'd be about as relevant as MySpace - 'member them?) Instagram and Snapchat are on the downturn as well. There's also the somewhat-still-used Disqus, though 90% of that is nothing more than a dumping ground for sex-spam bots and shitposting.
The new sweet hotness vehicles? Twitch, Discord, shit like that.
Meanwhile, I'm old enough to have used USENET and IRC on the regular... (USENET and NNTP still exist, but mostly as a subscription service these days, since no ISP really bothers with providing USENET service anymore. IRC is a crap-shoot, but I hadn't tried in years).
I'm old enough to have used TCP over carrier pigeon:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2549
Kek
related: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-safrica-pigeon-idUSTRE5885PM20090910
Given the amount of memory you can cram onto a thumb drive today, this would probably have better bandwidth than my DSL at home.
Remember Vine?
There’s no way to ensure TikTok will ever be safe from Commie interference. It should be banned and a new platform developed in the US.
We need decentralized technologies that are resistant to takeover and censorship.
We had them, still have them as valid protocols, and to some extent they still exist and get used today: NNTP/USENET, IRC, Archie, Gophernet...
Seriously, all were decentralized (especially USENET), didn't rely on any one vendor or network (any routable protocol could use it), and nobody owned it. Slap a web interface on any of those, and * poof *, there's yer decentralized social tech.
Everyone chases the new shiny, after all.
Didn't Discord just basically offer voice on top of IRC?
Yep. Though Usenet and IRC are semi-decentralized and usenet could really use a version 2.0. It's a shame that Diaspora never made a dent.
We need to move solutions more akin to Bittorrent and Cryptocurrencies. Permissionless is the way to go.
The CCP would never let anyone control their algorithm. Social media platforms choose what content to send to who and in what pattern. That is what is really happening with all these "media" systems.
Have you seen Tiktok? They can keep that one.
It's actually a much more effective platform than you might think. They have done several things with it that are pretty different than what's been done before. It's very possible for a complete unknown to go super viral - and that's an amazingly strong draw. Also the way that you can have memes to respond to memes is pretty impressive.
I'm not saying I'm a fan - or even a user - but it is worth understanding what makes it so attractive to so many.
TrumpTok is a thing. There's plenty of us over there!
Okay, just read it. Not exactly a legal expert but to my unprofessional eye the most important section is the final section titled "Good Faith". which seem to boil down to...
Subsection A: ToS needs to explain what the criteria is for bans
Subsection B: Restrictions need to be consistent with the ToS (ie: "Borderline Content" can't just be made up out of thin air)
Subsection C: Restictions have to be applied uniformly (can't ignore BLM & Islamic groups while going over Crowder with a fine-toothed comb)
Subsection D: Must tell people why they are being banned and give them a "meaningful opportunity to respond"
Now I just wish I understood what it means when the DOJ proposes secion 230 Reform. Who has to approve that? Congress? Executive branch? This is why regulations are so frustrating.
Read the article. First sentence:
Since Congress won't act, the DOJ went ahead and sent a draft bill to Congress. Which may get to committee, but don't hold your breath, because Congress doesn't like when other people do their job for them. But it lights a fire under them, if some powerful GOP Congress members adopt it and put their names on it.
You know lobbyists are screaming down the phone lines to their pet legislators to make sure this is blocked.
It sounds like it has to come from congress meaning it will never pass.
That's about what I got from it. A platform has to define what is and is not allowed, then follow those guidelines. They also have to provide a reporting mechanism.
It's about as effective as a "strongly worded letter".
What I didn't like is the earlier sections which make it a crime to allow publishing of content you know is illegal. Normally that sounds good, but then you consider Wikileaks or Snowden. Now the Feds have a stronger case for going after platforms which publish classified information which details illegal govt activity.
Easy to subvert. Just make right-wing content as the ones that bannable in the TOS. Instead of it being an open secret, make it into writing. What can these (((politicians))) do anyways?
Putting it into writing is important. Being an open secret to only the people posting attention doesn’t help you convince political newcomers
A hugely important additional edit is striking the "otherwise objectionable" language which has allowed safe space SJWs to define anything even slightly contrasting against their views to be objectionable and thus fair game to censor.
Thanks for posting! Was just about to post it myself, haha.
Hey, you’re supposed to be a jingo on this forum, not think for yourself and be objective.
Here’s what Gab has to say about your freedom of speech....
The Justice Department asked Congress today to adopt a new law that would water down Section 230 of the CDA, a cornerstone for protecting free speech online. This is a horrible idea and will inevitably harm alternative technology startups like Gab in the long run while solidifying Big Tech's control over the flow of information online. This is precisely why both establishment Democrats and Republicans are pushing for this effort together. There is very little that the left and right agree on these days, yet they both seem to agree on destroying Section 230 in order to retain their control over the narrative online.
In a free country a corporation should be free to be biased. For example Apple censors music to comply with Chinese Communists. Twitter lets Pakistan tell it what users around the world, including Americans, can and can’t say. Gab is biased towards American law and freedom.
Section 230 says nothing about political neutrality, and for good reason. Who defines “neutrality” and better yet who enforces it? Any proposal to add a “neutrality” clause to Section 230 would be unconstitutional. It would require the government to police the speech of corporations and infringe on their first amendment rights.
Section 230 protects technology companies, including Gab, from being held liable for the speech others. It does NOT prevent them from exercising their own free speech rights, nor should it. The text of Section 230 is very clear: companies that act in good faith to remove content that they themselves find “objectionable” or that their users find “objectionable” whether or not that content is constitutionally protected, are shielded from being held liable for the speech of their users.
When Big Tech platforms “fact-check” posts or “editorialize” content Section 230 does not apply to that speech. That speech is them speaking, not a user. Section 230 does not prevent them from being held liable for their own speech.
Meaning if they defame someone using their speech legal action can be taken against them. If someone else defames a person on their platform, Section 230 protects the technology company from being held liable for the speech of that other person. This isn’t complicate if you read the text. Many of you may not like the way that Big Tech is exercising their free speech. I know I don’t. Which is why we started Gab back in 2016 as an alternative to Big Tech tyranny.
If you don’t like what Big Tech has to say, if you don’t like their “Community Guidelines,” and if you don’t like their moderation choices the solution is to get on Gab.com and other alternative technology platforms that support and share your values. Period.
Gab is thriving because we don’t patrol legal speech which is protected by American speech laws, particularly the first amendment and rulings on it. Gab is a threat because we violate the unspoken rule, shared by all big tech companies, media elites, and members of Congress, that every user of the Internet must be subject to aggressive content moderation, which in our experience, users hate.
From our standpoint, the mobile app ecosystems are the biggest choke point, particularly with Apple which does not permit iPhone users to direct-download third party applications to their phones. Apple and Google have an unquestionable duopoly on mobile app distribution with 98% marketshare. This where the DOJ's focus should be.
We believe the big tech companies have sufficiently close connections between them that they can and do collude to remove competitors. Gab is the perfect example of this abuse of market power in action, being banned by both Apple and Google app stores for refusing to censor “offensive” speech. Of course anyone who has ever visited Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit knows that there is plenty of “offensive” speech on those websites, yet they are allowed to remain on both app stores due to their close partnerships with Apple and Google.
Apple should lose its stranglehold over what apps users can download on iPhones, Google should be broken up, and the individual corporate officers responsible for these anticompetitive practices should be individually punished.
Google is a vast repository of private information and we believe that their App Store dominance is only one small part of their anticompetitive activity across the wider economy – which includes dominance over SEO, advertising and the flow of dollars to online publishers, as evidenced by a recent $1.7 billion antitrust fine levied against Google by European regulators.
We believe that an antitrust investigation of these companies will reveal all manner of anticompetitive conduct in areas as diverse as search ranking, advertising, mobile app distribution, browser bundling, and even browser performance.
If the Republicans, President Trump, and the DOJ want to stop Big Tech bias, watering down Section 230 of the CDA is not the answer. Taking antitrust action against the anticompetitive and monopolistic behavior of Silicon Valley while joining and supporting alternative technology platforms like Gab.com and others is.
Andrew Torba CEO, Gab.com September 23rd, 2020
Better late than ever. Just do it properly. No half measures.
Publishers not platforms! Make it known!
Publishers not Platforms*
Thank you!
Tim Pool must be cumming in his beanie right now.
Oh god please get that image out of my head
Might be out of your head but gonna take longer to get it all off of his head
Not really, there’s no hair to wash.
If you think that’s bad, just know without his beanie he looks like Brian Stelter. Now you’ve just imagined Brian Stelter doing that lol
Idk, man. It's complicated.
Look man
what does this mean?
Twitter and Facebook about to get rekt
Yeah it even says in this that the legislation is what executes Trump's EO re: online censorship. Uhhhh so Trump's EOs don't matter until Congress says so? Someone call Obama and tell him about his EO on DACA being void...
You think the Cuckseratives in power will vote to fuck over some of their biggest donors? Lmao give me a break. The proposal is a joke.
He's been up to not doing his job. He's more asleep than sleepy sessions was.
Does it involve a whole lot of REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE?
If the dems keep the house....
*If congress passes it.
LOL. Google just collectively pooped their pants. This could fuck YouTube right up the ass. Hard, with no lube.
The social media era is about to end. Thank god.
Twitter has to be about one of the worst things humanity has created in the last fifty years. I'll be glad to see it gone.
What? All the bill says you have to enforce any ToS equally. You can still put "right wingers fuck off" into your ToS and be gucci. Is the problem with the wording in the ToS or is the problem with the fucking censorship?
It's not just this, it's overall. It got so filled with fuckery and greed and corruption, the tide is turning.
When the government starts writing legislation about something, it's over. Social media will be around, but it's importance has peaked.
Social media is great, so long as people can practice their first amendment right.
If I'm reading this correctly, and I've only skimmed it, it's legislation clarifying what social media platforms can and can't do with material posted on their sites. If they remove content because it doesn't fit their narrative, they can be prosecuted. They can also be held liable for people coordinating riots and other crimes.
Hasn't passed yet, though. Let's hope we retake Congress so we can ram this down Silicon Valley's throat.
It means soccer moms are only able to like 5 posts per day on Facebook.
What's a face book?
a book of faces?
Like a binder full of women?
It’s a book for ranking the attractiveness of female college students at Harvard.
Made by a very unattractive male college student at Harvard
Facebook and Twitter don't get to hide under the guise of a platform, and instead are now marked as publishers. A platform is a place that anyone can upload content and that content is theirs and not the platforms. A publisher is similar in that you can upload to it just like a platform, however the publisher decides what to do with that content once it is on their site. Beforehand, social media was saying that they were removing things that violated their terms of service, so they could still act as a platform. This specifically came from the the phrasing "otherwise objectionable" in Section 2, subparagraph A, which allowed platforms to decide what exactly "otherwise objectionable" meant whenever they pleased. Now, based on the rewritten legislation, it removes that wording entirely, and now makes platforms have to prove that they are acting in good faith when removing content. If they cannot prove that they removed the content for a good reason, they stand to lose their platform status and become a publisher. If they become a publisher, it is GAME OVER for them as ALL CONTENT THEY HOST, THEY BECOME LIABLE FOR. Child porn, terrorist orgs using twitter as a propaganda platform, social media censoring free speech. Any laws violated by their users, they become responsible for too when they decide what can and cannot be allowed on their website.
So if they want to stay a platform they have to have an irrefutable reason to remove content and hate speech is not irrefutable.
Precisely. The new language states it as "in good faith" and then goes on to describe what that is, as well as what bad faith is. The only way to be considered doing something in good faith would be if the content being removed is illegal, or if it goes against the companies terms of service. Now the kicker is that they cannot put obscene ToS in place, less they want to be marked a publisher. So now they're in a pickle: either go all out and become a publisher and allow the government to take you down, or stay as a platform and allow all discourse to be had on their site. Beautiful, isn't it?
Not if you're the CEO of Gab
Big news day today.
Drooling now.
ELi5 plz?
This would lead to more free speech online. Facebook and other social medias can get away with a lot of censorship because of section 230.
Well they technically could still ban conservatives as long as their TOS says they're going to ban conservatives. Kinda like how ours says Trump supporters only.
True but no more masquerading as an impartial content provider. They will have to admit their bias.
And honestly I’m okay with this. If I host a American cars forum and people start bashing American cars, I want to be able to ban them
Admit and then what? Do you think people don't know already?
Liberals/leftists dont
Ahhh, that makes sense. I was wondering how we got away with deporting cucks, good to know we're fucking MAGA and only MAGA up in this bitch!
Section 230 provides liability coverage for 'platforms' like facebook, twitter, etc, which makes them not responsible for what users post. It'd be impossible to operate a platform without that coverage, as lawsuits would roll in every time some a-hole made a slanderous comment towards another. This would bankrupty the platform in litigation costs. So 230 is well intentioned, and without something similar we wouldn't have some of the nice platforms we do have. BUUUUUT, these platforms have acted in bad faith, moderating content in extremely lopsided manner to where they suppress conservative speech and promote lefty speech (silencing posts, faking twitter trends, for example). These reforms attempt to say "You can moderate, but you must be fair and consistent. And if you do not stay fair and consistent, you will lose liability protection". Basically telling them to be fair or fuck off.
Not true. These platforms could exist where you self-publish and they amplify it - like what cloudfare does for thedonald.win - so that you don't need a terabit internet connection.
They don't do this because 230 let's them get away with hosting your content instead of amplifying it, and that lets them censor and monopolize your content.
Well if we take the time to write some good laws, when the time comes and we have the votes, we can get it done. Either that or we get some sort of agreements with these companies or its monopoly busting time.
It is attempting to fix the paradox of companies like Google, facebook, twitter from being able to act like platform while still retaining the protections of a publisher. Right now the tech giants all use a loop hole in the old section 230 to protect themselves while they do as they please. If this goes through it will force these companies to change how they deal with content. Hopefully it will force them declare as publisher with full editorial control over what gets posted or a platform which allows anyone to post anything as long as it does not break any laws (or terms of service because muh private companies).
From what ive heard, the idea is that 230 reform would mean that tech companies wouldnt be liable for anything said on their platforms. The theory is that the reason conservatives are being censored is because advertisers are saying they dont want to be on controversial content. So when advertisers or activist complain about content, the tech companies can point to the law and say there's nothing they can do about it
It's now or never. Protect free speech on the last place it has or give every single powerful tech company full control of the narrative. Reform it! Confirm the next scotus! Goddamn voter id!
Let’s see the follow through. Then I’ll get excited.
Awesome, but why has it taken so long?
What does this mean? Does it take effect right away?
Please watch this Schoolhouse Rock video. https://youtu.be/FFroMQlKiag
Unfortunately it means nothing. It’s a proposal for the congress to act on and congress won’t because they are run my democrats.
Hahahahaha. F#ck Spez the cuck !
Chinese owned cuck.
And you'll never hear about these happenings unless you have access to alternative news found only in the corners of the internet. Change is happening behind closed doors, the silent majority is growing. Trump 2Q2Q.
JUST SCRAP IT
CREATE AN INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS
And close any and all potential loopholes.
What are the odds it gets through the House though? Dems will see this as taking away big techs ability to moderate in their favor and force more fair moderation. While I love the concept, I don't see it getting passed.
Not just Dems. Inb4 "mah corporate rights" from libertarians and big business Repubs.
Yeah i dont like this language either. Doesn't seem to do anything like the top comments are suggesting. My reading came to the same conclusion as you, plus they add a provision that you have to notify someone specifically why their content was removed... unless its, according to the platform, "illegal" or "harmful". Well fucking great, so carry on as before and be sure to cite the hurt fee-fees when someone says they didn't receive proper notice. Its like Jack Dipshey wrote this fucker himself.
Section 230 reform is needed. Democrats will NEVER vote for it. They like kicking conservatives off all the major platforms.
If there was no section 230, it means every website would be responsible for all the of the content posted. The big tech cos can still afford teams of moderators, but a smaller competitor would have no chance.
I.e., I set up a small website, and a user posts something illegal. Now I'm 100% responsible for it. I'd have to manually review every single post, which means creating a new reddit or facebook or twitter would be impossible.
In theory that's what it was going to do. In reality, it's turned big tech into a propaganda machine and killed the competition in the sector.
The competition was killed by the network effect. I.e., you have to be on Facebook if all your friends are on Facebook.
It also was killed by moving away from open technologies (like RSS). Instead, each big social media company has its own walled garden.
Without scrolling down I already know the cancer in this comment section about how it's not already done.
I will say this, the wheels of justice move slowly. Sometimes I wish they moved faster, but at least they are moving.
I don't have time to read at the moment. Did lobbyist draft this?
Maybe not. This is coming through DOJ, not Congress.
So it came from the Swamp. Great.
Andrew Torba seems to think this is bad legislation that will hurt free speech online. Copy/pasting the email from Gab for anyone who missed it:
IOW, if this is done right and is a benefit to only the American people, Gab will fade into irrelevance. They can only compete right now because the don't censor. If FB and Twatter are forced to either be publishers or platforms, they won't be allowed to censor meaning things go back to pre 2015 era where you can say whatever. Gab only came about because of censorship and only exists because of it. Without tech companies doing it, they lose all reason to exist.
can comeone give the tldr? :) im decidedly right brained and this kinda stuff skips on my brain like rocks on water lol
This isn't a link to the proposal itself, it is a summary of the proposal. Not too terrible of a read. But the super short TLDR is that social media companies should not be allowed to censor legal online speech/content, and should be punished for actively allowing or facilitating illegal activity on their websites.
Then hope we get the House back!
All this is going to do is be used against us. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. This will be nothing but another excuse for these people to remove thoughts they don't like.
So if I’m reading this right.... websites will be able to censor what they please but the terms have to be clearly stated in the TOS and be done evenly?
Better but still pretty weak. Things like "extremist group" not defined simply means they're going to continue calling Trump/conservatives/Christians/etc "extremists" and keep doing what they're doing.
Disqualification for content provider is contributing or significantly modifying user content. I don't think deleting falls under here. Neither does fudging their trends since that is aggregated data they produce.
Redline doc here: https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download
They really need to draft this better. It just sounds unnecessarily complicated and easier to abuse than the original Section 230.
Too many subjective ways to interpret this reform. It's like they want lawyers to tear this apart.
"Urge Congress" Now just weeks before the election you finally bring this up and want to urge the congress whose House is controlled by the crypt keeper Nancy Piglousy to do something? What a joke.
As there ever been a more useless document put out by the DOJ to cover their ass for not doing anything? Bushie Barr strikes again.
This needed to happen 3 and a half years ago!
“Sent draft legislation to Congress”
WE’RE SAVED!!!!!
*unnecessary /s
Won’t be happy until I see ultra WOKE Jack Dorsey in prison
Gab sent me an email saying this is bad news and can erode free speech.
gab is literally a glowie platform.
Does section 230 apply to gaming forums? I'm getting tired of being banned from them for having the wrong opinions.
I am not sure this will help us at all, it looks as if there are no teeth at all in this.. AND there are WAY to many loopholes for in my uneducated viewpoint...
Would've been helpful BEFORE voting began, but I will take it. If it even happens. They should all get slapped with massive fines and lawsuits for pretending not to EDIT. Everyone knows they obviously 100% DO.
It never will with democrats in control of the house.
Hell, it's about time.
I'd be fine with net neutrality as long as we had this too. Big Tech neutrality.
Won't do much unless there are swift legal and financial penalties for any company violating these laws.
Need legal protections for free speech. No more corporate retributions by companies like Costco because someone said something that hurt their fee fees.
And lets be specific, the "bad words" this person uttered were not directed at Costco, anyone who worked at Costco, but just were not deemed "acceptable" speech by the fascists who are in-charge at the Costco corporate.
If someone goes around talking trash about Costco or their management and does business with Costco, then no protections unless what they are saying is something factual like Costco sold outdated food or something.
Reddit BTFO.
Yes, please. And, thank you.
Oh look everyone still says "Omg Barr just act already." Surprised face.
At least they're starting to move shit.
Is this something the house of reps can block?
This could be a first approach to solve Section 230 loopholes. Reading the draft it seems they focused on the main issues, i.e. ISIS propaganda on YT, FB and Twitter; CP networks; sites that host any illegal content (TPB, Megaupload).
There's no mention of political censorship or anti-conservative bias.