Slashdot Mirror
The Consequences of Indecency (techcrunch.com)
Ron Wyden, a senior U.S. Senator from Oregon, argues there should be consequences for internet companies that refuse to remove hate speech from their platforms. An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a report Wyden wrote via TechCrunch: I wrote the law that allows sites to be unfettered free speech marketplaces. I wrote that same law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to provide vital protections to sites that didn't want to host the most unsavory forms of expression. The goal was to protect the unique ability of the internet to be the proverbial marketplace of ideas while ensuring that mainstream sites could reflect the ethics of society as a whole. In general, this has been a success -- with one glaring exception. I never expected that internet CEOs would fail to understand one simple principle: that an individual endorsing (or denying) the extermination of millions of people, or attacking the victims of horrific crimes or the parents of murdered children, is far more indecent than an individual posting pornography.
Social media cannot exist without the legal protections of Section 230. That protection is not constitutional, it's statutory. Failure by the companies to properly understand the premise of the law is the beginning of the end of the protections it provides. I say this because their failures are making it increasingly difficult for me to protect Section 230 in Congress. Members across the spectrum, including far-right House and Senate leaders, are agitating for government regulation of internet platforms. Even if government doesn't take the dangerous step of regulating speech, just eliminating the 230 protections is enough to have a dramatic, chilling effect on expression across the internet. Were Twitter to lose the protections I wrote into law, within 24 hours its potential liabilities would be many multiples of its assets and its stock would be worthless. The same for Facebook and any other social media site. Boards of directors should have taken action long before now against CEOs who refuse to recognize this threat to their business. In an interview with Recode, Wyden said that platforms should be punished for hosting content that goes against "common decency." "I think what the Alex Jones case shows, we're gonna really be looking at what the consequences are for just leaving common decency in the dust," Wyden told Recode's Kara Swisher. "...What I'm gonna be trying to do in my legislation is to really lay out what the consequences are when somebody who is a bad actor, somebody who really doesn't meet the decency principles that reflect our values, if that bad actor blows by the bounds of common decency, I think you gotta have a way to make sure that stuff is taken down."
Social media cannot exist without the legal protections of Section 230. That protection is not constitutional, it's statutory. Failure by the companies to properly understand the premise of the law is the beginning of the end of the protections it provides. I say this because their failures are making it increasingly difficult for me to protect Section 230 in Congress. Members across the spectrum, including far-right House and Senate leaders, are agitating for government regulation of internet platforms. Even if government doesn't take the dangerous step of regulating speech, just eliminating the 230 protections is enough to have a dramatic, chilling effect on expression across the internet. Were Twitter to lose the protections I wrote into law, within 24 hours its potential liabilities would be many multiples of its assets and its stock would be worthless. The same for Facebook and any other social media site. Boards of directors should have taken action long before now against CEOs who refuse to recognize this threat to their business. In an interview with Recode, Wyden said that platforms should be punished for hosting content that goes against "common decency." "I think what the Alex Jones case shows, we're gonna really be looking at what the consequences are for just leaving common decency in the dust," Wyden told Recode's Kara Swisher. "...What I'm gonna be trying to do in my legislation is to really lay out what the consequences are when somebody who is a bad actor, somebody who really doesn't meet the decency principles that reflect our values, if that bad actor blows by the bounds of common decency, I think you gotta have a way to make sure that stuff is taken down."
go on, define it
Decency.... hate speech .... blah blah blah blah
Everything that Senator Wyden says is the same exact justification that China, North Korea and every other dictatorship uses for suppressing free speech and free expression.
...and decides that things like "homosexuality", "pre-marital sex" and "mixed marriages" are "against the common decency" - then it's perfectly ok for any matching content to be removed from the internet, right? RIGHT?
Because THAT'S what this is saying...
...when what is considered indecent is decided by those in power?
--- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.
Let's start with the bad actor Ron Wyden, somebody who really doesn't meet the decency principles that reflect our values. That bad actor blows by the bounds of common decency. Make sure that stuff is taken down.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - from The Friends of Voltaire
This kind of commitment to free speech is a pillar of classical liberalism. Sen. Wyden is interested in the opposite: infringing civil rights.
Hate speech does poorly in a free marketplace of ideas, and brings discredit upon the speaker. There is no need to infringe freedom of speech, one of the most fundamental civil rights.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Social media cannot exist without the legal protections of Section 230. That protection is not constitutional, it's statutory.
The first amendment states the following:
The first amendment is intended to restrain congress from acting against free speech. If revising or removing the Section 230 protections has a chilling effect on free expression, then Congress has abridged free speech, and the act of modifying Section 230 was then unconstitutional. It does not matter that Section 230 did not exist at the time the constitution was made ---- Today we enjoy certain free speech rights, And a law protects platforms who enable us to exercise that free speech right. ANY attempt to curtail that by passing any kind of law or law that says an existing law shall change --- is an abridgement of Free Speech; Once congress passes a law protecting free speech (Such as Section 230) --- which is their authority to do in order to enforce the constitution, The first amendment ensures congress does not have the right to abridge the rights of expression by cancelling that protection.
Who gets to set that "ethics of society" for political speech? One side of US politics for political comments?
Who gets to flag and enforce that "ethics of society" on US domestic politics? Followers of one side of US politics?
The USA saw what "chilling effect on expression" was like under the tyranny of a UK monarchy.
Thats why the USA protects the freedom of speech and freedom after speech.
Why the USA has freedom of the press.
The right to peaceably assemble.
To petition for a governmental redress of grievances.
Self-evident under God. Not the changing partisan politics to "reflect the ethics of society".
US freedoms are protected from governments, not for governments to set limits on.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
But he's far less of an evil than Holocaust deniers and actual Nazis.
Actual Nazis, yes. Holocaust deniers, no. Actual Nazis were dangerous not because of their words, but their actions. It was the fact that they murdered millions of innocent people that made them evil and dangerous, not their speech. Holocaust deniers are not nearly as dangerous as those that would attempt to control the teaching of history through legislation.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
"We need to kill all those old white guys and make sure that someone who represents the actual people runs Washington."
Is that hate speech? That's basically the left's rhetoric everywhere for the last 80 years.
Simply look at the problems global platforms are experiencing with foreign governments currently.
Twitter pressured to remove content because it offends the thin-skinned leader of another country (China, Turkey). I mean really, Winnie the Pooh is offensive? Imagine Trump having the power to ban all pictures and references to Cheetos from the internet because its "offensive" to his supporters!
The bigger problem though is vocal minorities.
Imagine the US Government forcing YouTube to remove Mark Meechan's (Nazi dog guy's) videos because a small group of people with no sense of humor complained.
Imagine Facebook removing a Harry Potter fan page because a group of angry Bible Belt moms complained it was "of the devil" and offensive.
Imagine the knee-jerk reaction to the next mass shooting being to remove whatever imagined influence (Ozzy Osbourne, Iron maiden, D&D, Magic the Gathering, Marilyn Manson, Call of Duty, etc) from the internet "to prevent it happening again".
This isn't a slippery slope. Its a cliff. And we're standing at the edge with one foot over the drop while politicians stand behind us screaming that somehow that step will be good for us.
Yes, its almost as if they dont already have plenty of existing laws that can be applied for anything that is ACTUALLY ILLEGAL.
What this is pushing for is government oversight on the morality of discussions, and anyone who doesn't understand that deserves to suffer the consequences.
Someone online engaging in actual slander, actual threats, actual hate speech (already getting blurry there) already has LAWS THAT CAN BE APPLIED.
'On the internet' is not some kind of magic legal umbrella.
The larger concern here is farcebook et.al. acting like they have common-carrier like protections and yet ALSO engaging in selective removal of content.
They cannot have it both ways.. Or at least they should not be able to.
It's stupid. I can call you a dick, a cunt, an asshole, a fuckwit, a retard, a moron, an imbecile, a douchebag, a jackass, or a buffoon, and that's all perfectly acceptable and not hate speech. But I can't call you a n*gger or a f*ggot, because hate speech. But you can call me a cracker or a breeder, because hand waving.
Who the fuck makes up this bullshit? Idiots with too much time on their hands and an IQ smaller than their waist band.
Yeah, but Senator Wyden doesn't like that the meanies get to spew their ignorant crap, so instead of punishing the people that are "editorializing" he's going after the publishers.
Because clearly Mark Zuckerberg needs a few more congressional subpoenas because people are mean on the Internet.
How is this not a clear violation of the First Amendment again? Sure sounds like he's trying to get Congress to make a law abridging free speech, and it won't hold up to the so-called "yelling fire in a theater" test as it's not endangering public safety or willful negligence. In the best case, it's trolling or extreme ignorance - worst case is this is a back door for government abuse of power to go after political enemies and malcontents because you don't like what they're saying.
Who is the arbiter of what's "decent" under this law anyway?
Oh, Senator Wyden. I voted for you once upon a time when you hadn't gone full idiot...
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Really struggling to find something substantive in that comment that might have justified the "Insightful" mod. You're sort of in the neighborhood of the Paradox of Tolerance, but not that it shows in your comment.
I think the consequences should be to your personal reputation, and the largest problem of the Internet is that there are too many people who don't care about their personal reputation or who feel no accountability for saying negative and destructive things. In the case of trolls, I'm not sure "people" is a meaningful label, since they can just spawn fresh sock puppets so quickly.
In terms of a constructive solution (which always seems lost and even laughable [a bid for "Funny" mods?] around today's Slashdot), I think the solution is to help the negative folks render themselves invisible. I think karma should be enhanced to be a kind of multidimensional metric of EPR (Earned Public Reputation). You would be able to control what sort of people are visible to you and who therefore can intrude into your attention and consume your time.
Personally speaking, I would like to set my visibility threshold a little above the default value. I think the default should be just slightly positive, which means that newbies would mostly be visible to each other, but they could quickly earn the normal level of visibility, perhaps merely by existing for a few weeks even if they don't earn any favorable mods. However by setting my own bar a little higher I would be able to focus on people who I'm more interested in. For example, I would like to favor people who earn funny mod points, even if a particular comment hasn't been so modded.
Time's up. ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Who is the arbiter of what's "decent" under this law anyway?
Allow me to condense Sen, Wyden's remarks;
"We must infringe upon your freedom to prevent those we deem Nazis from infringing upon your freedom." -- Sen. Ron Wyden (D) 2018
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I would rather not. There have been conspiracy groups forever. JFK assasinations, moon landings, UFOs, con-trails, you name it. It was _never_ a real threat until they started banning it. By banning it they have given more credibility to this guy than anything they could have ever done by just letting him get on his soap box weekly.
Not really. "Social Justice", at least as it is practiced today, appears to be not concerned with equal opportunity but equal OUTCOMES. The only way to make THAT happen is to remove those three aspirations of classical liberalism: political freedom, civil liberty, and economic freedom. It is a belief that somehow everyone is a victim and everyone else owes you something. To to promote it, they foster "identity politics" where people are not individuals, but just parts of either victim or oppressor "groups." And to "rectify it", they seek government and corporate assistance, demonize anyone who disagrees, and seek to shut down any rational conversation in any way possible- like appealing to emotion instead of facts and banning speech. Gone is individual responsibility and gratefulness, replaced with blame, sadness, and outrage. That is the modern social justice warrior, at least as I have observed.
It was _never_ a real threat until they started banning it.
I would say they were never a threat until POTUS started spreading them. These conspiracy theories have become a strategy to hold on to power when the shit hits the fan, and at the expense of the mental health of his base.
What's made conspiracy theories and Alex Jones in particular "a real threat" recently is their widespread harassment of the families of mass shooting victims, driven by the relatively recent rise of false flag conspiracy theories around mass shootings (the shooting was a false flag, therefore the families of the fake people who didn't die are "crisis actors," therefore let's harass the shit out of them until they admit their ties to the Illuminati!).
Alex Jones in particular has driven many targeted harassment campaigns against these family members.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If you get banned from every restaurant in town, you need to admit that you have a problem.
Pretty sure that was the message some certain southerners wanted a certain other group to learn.
Facebook, et al. are losing more users by not banning Infowars than by banning them.
Do you have any reason to believe that or are you just making it up? These groups have been on those platforms since the beginning and it has never been a problem until we got onto this new censorship push.
If you get banned from every restaurant in town, you need to admit that you have a problem.
Pretty sure that was the message some certain southerners wanted a certain other group to learn.
Race is a protected class. Gullibility is not.