Nope, there will just be this giant wall that will only let non-banned subjects through, burning the rest to a crisp.
I'm actually scared what the internet will look like less 230. I'm guessing we will see more 4chan then pre-approved comments, just because that scales easier.
I was consciences that the lack of 230 would doom the internet. Looking at the cesspit it’s become, I don’t Think It’s unreasonable to restrict section 230 a bit more.
Let’s see what the language is in the bill. Reporting like this is too light on details.
What Section 230 does is make business which operate platforms not liable for the user content posted on those platforms. It's a "safe harbor" provision that prevents any company from having to take on the legal liabilities that come from hosting user-generated content they have no real control over.
In short, if you post something on Facebook that someone else doesn't like, that person can't sue Facebook. But, crucially, there's nothing special about Facebook, Twitter, or the other big names here. If I make my own social media startup, I would also enjoy the same protections. It's the same reason you can't sue Wikipedia for libel if you don't like what's written about you. Indeed, wikipedia can only really exist because of Section 230 protections.
Now why would the negative effects be disproportionate towards small entities and startups? Because the big guys can afford their own content moderation systems. They certainly don't want to take on the role of censor, but they're perfectly able to. Little nimble startups can't, which makes repealing section 230 a form of regulatory capture by existing social media companies.
All section 230 does is to protect companies from being sued for what their users posted on their service, with a couple of exceptions, ie copyright materials and Sex trafficking.
That’s essentially it.
It does not “give” companies the ability to not publish something, ie censor what someone posts. That right is inherent in the company being a private entity.
The Republicans, who are furious because Twitter blocked stories about the Hunter Biden laptop, like to claim that their freedom of speech was impeded, as if the first amendment applies to private individuals or companies. It does not, it only applies to the government limiting a persons right to free speech.
The vitriol against Section 230 is really designed to punish companies for not allowing proven false materials by the far-right. The Republicans want to open up the floodgates of lawsuits against these companies for this reason.
Repealing it will not made free speech more open, more likely it’ll construct it greatly as companies heavily restrict what can be published.
Per a question as to how this could hurt small business/startups, FB and Twitter have the resources to fight the lawsuits, startups don’t.
> All section 230 does is to protect companies from being sued for what their users posted on their service
It also protects other users from liability.
> It does not “give” companies the ability to not publish something, ie censor what someone posts.
It does in fact make this legally easier, because any content moderation without 230 would give the firm publisher liability (basically, presumptive liability for illegal content) rather than distributor liability (in which they are only liable for content for which they have notice of illegality). Under the plain text of 230 they are protected against publisher liability if they comply with it (and under precedent they are also protected against distributor liability.)
> FB and Twitter have the resources to fight the lawsuits
No, they don't. They are unwinnable (Was it false? Was it harmful? Was it on the platform? You lose.) FB and Twitter are just big money piñatas without 230, until they radically retool the structure of their platforms.
> What liability does it protect me (as a user of Facebook and Twitter) from?
Under (e.g.) defamation law without section 230, actions you take on the platform which affect the distribution of defamatory statements could make you liable for defamation, including when the “interaction” is hosting a space on the platform where it is posted, like a Facebook page or wall, or even the parent post on which it is posted as a comment.
> “Big Tech must not get protections of Section 230!” Trump said in a statement Sunday. “Voter fraud must be fixed!”
Taken at face value, this statement links two issues that many people wouldn't think are linked. The president is blaming social media for his election loss and seeking to repeal section 230 as the remedy.
No matter how many times this comes up, it's extraordinary. First, because the president owes his 2016 win to social media company protections under section 230. Second, because the president almost won a second term thanks to it. Third, because section 230 is from what I gather a lonely diamond in the stinking pile of rubbish that is the Communications Decency Act.
> The president is blaming social media for his election loss and seeking to repeal section 230 as the remedy.
Is that true?
From my perspective, it seems like Trump is pointing to the censorship of “big tech” - Twitter and Facebook, in particular - as having largely suppressed stories that would have been negative for Biden, then having suppressed voter fraud allegations in the immediate aftermath of the election.
This is only the perspective that I infer to be his. I don’t really agree or disagree with it. From where I sit, it has become increasingly difficult to find reliable reporting about any political topic.
I think I really need to learn about how and why unrelated aspects can be part of the same bill. In this case the stimulus, Section 230, election advisory committee and election access disclosure. Seems like they should be at least three bills.
This is, unfortunately, an old and well established legislative practice. It allows parties to combine minor interests with major interests in all-or-nothing bundles. It's essentially a (often misused) negotiation tool.
McConnell has one goal by tying the $2k stimulus check, section 230 and voter fraud issues together. To create a poison pill package so Democrats won’t vote on the bill and allow the Republicans to blame them for not allowing the $2k checks.
If nothing else, the idea that one man dictates the governance of our country clearly shows that the congress is broken and there needs to be changes made to allow any member to bring forth bills to be voted on. Regardless of which party has the majority.
I suppose you're right. US would come to be known as anti-user-generated-content, as Australia came to be known as a place where the gov can compel companies to make backdoors. Companies would migrate their workforce, servers, etc..
Maybe not the death of the global internet, but not good for the US.
23 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 66.5 ms ] threadI'm actually scared what the internet will look like less 230. I'm guessing we will see more 4chan then pre-approved comments, just because that scales easier.
What would prevent these new 4chans from being sued out of existence?
* This claim about social media bias has been disputed.
I was consciences that the lack of 230 would doom the internet. Looking at the cesspit it’s become, I don’t Think It’s unreasonable to restrict section 230 a bit more.
Let’s see what the language is in the bill. Reporting like this is too light on details.
To be clear, I’m not taking a counter position to your statement; I’d like to understand your position better.
In short, if you post something on Facebook that someone else doesn't like, that person can't sue Facebook. But, crucially, there's nothing special about Facebook, Twitter, or the other big names here. If I make my own social media startup, I would also enjoy the same protections. It's the same reason you can't sue Wikipedia for libel if you don't like what's written about you. Indeed, wikipedia can only really exist because of Section 230 protections.
Now why would the negative effects be disproportionate towards small entities and startups? Because the big guys can afford their own content moderation systems. They certainly don't want to take on the role of censor, but they're perfectly able to. Little nimble startups can't, which makes repealing section 230 a form of regulatory capture by existing social media companies.
You can see the language by scrolling down a bit and looking at the embedded document. It's near the top of the second page.
It begins with: "In general Section230 .... is repealed."
That’s essentially it.
It does not “give” companies the ability to not publish something, ie censor what someone posts. That right is inherent in the company being a private entity.
The Republicans, who are furious because Twitter blocked stories about the Hunter Biden laptop, like to claim that their freedom of speech was impeded, as if the first amendment applies to private individuals or companies. It does not, it only applies to the government limiting a persons right to free speech.
The vitriol against Section 230 is really designed to punish companies for not allowing proven false materials by the far-right. The Republicans want to open up the floodgates of lawsuits against these companies for this reason.
Repealing it will not made free speech more open, more likely it’ll construct it greatly as companies heavily restrict what can be published.
Per a question as to how this could hurt small business/startups, FB and Twitter have the resources to fight the lawsuits, startups don’t.
It also protects other users from liability.
> It does not “give” companies the ability to not publish something, ie censor what someone posts.
It does in fact make this legally easier, because any content moderation without 230 would give the firm publisher liability (basically, presumptive liability for illegal content) rather than distributor liability (in which they are only liable for content for which they have notice of illegality). Under the plain text of 230 they are protected against publisher liability if they comply with it (and under precedent they are also protected against distributor liability.)
> FB and Twitter have the resources to fight the lawsuits
No, they don't. They are unwinnable (Was it false? Was it harmful? Was it on the platform? You lose.) FB and Twitter are just big money piñatas without 230, until they radically retool the structure of their platforms.
What liability does it protect me (as a user of Facebook and Twitter) from?
Under (e.g.) defamation law without section 230, actions you take on the platform which affect the distribution of defamatory statements could make you liable for defamation, including when the “interaction” is hosting a space on the platform where it is posted, like a Facebook page or wall, or even the parent post on which it is posted as a comment.
Taken at face value, this statement links two issues that many people wouldn't think are linked. The president is blaming social media for his election loss and seeking to repeal section 230 as the remedy.
No matter how many times this comes up, it's extraordinary. First, because the president owes his 2016 win to social media company protections under section 230. Second, because the president almost won a second term thanks to it. Third, because section 230 is from what I gather a lonely diamond in the stinking pile of rubbish that is the Communications Decency Act.
Is that true?
From my perspective, it seems like Trump is pointing to the censorship of “big tech” - Twitter and Facebook, in particular - as having largely suppressed stories that would have been negative for Biden, then having suppressed voter fraud allegations in the immediate aftermath of the election.
This is only the perspective that I infer to be his. I don’t really agree or disagree with it. From where I sit, it has become increasingly difficult to find reliable reporting about any political topic.
If nothing else, the idea that one man dictates the governance of our country clearly shows that the congress is broken and there needs to be changes made to allow any member to bring forth bills to be voted on. Regardless of which party has the majority.
It would be a disaster for every website with user-generated content, especially smaller ones.
Sure it’s unthinkable, but if they don’t have any presence in the states you can’t sue a foreign company for doing business on the internet?
What would the US’s recourse be? Start doing a Great Firewall?
"Australian tech companies have said that the bill could hurt their business overseas, because customers would doubt their promises to protect encrypted data." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/australia/encryptio...