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.
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.