Top US Congressman Says Silicon Valley's Self-Regulating Days 'Probably Should Be' Over (recode.net)

On the technology podcast Recode Decode, America's Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, said that Silicon Valley's self-regulating days "probably should be" over. Recode reports: Pelosi said Silicon Valley is abusing the privilege of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says that internet companies are not responsible for what is posted on their platforms. "230 is a gift to them, and I don't think they are treating it with the respect that they should," she said. "And so I think that that could be a question mark and in jeopardy.... For the privilege of 230, there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it, and it is not out of the question that that could be removed."

Asked about Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren's proposal to break up Amazon, Google, and Facebook, Pelosi said she had not studied it closely. Instead, she more cautiously suggested that some agglomerations of power may be worth breaking up. "I know there could be some clear lines that we see in our community, of companies that maybe could be easily broken up without having any impact, one on the other," she said. "I'm a big believer in the antitrust laws, I think that's very important for us to have them and to use them, and to subject those who should be subjected to it. "

Comments

Silicon Valley is fucked up

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Re: Silicon Valley is fucked up

[Anonymous Coward]

It is Pelosi's district, after all. And apparently Pelosi got a sex change and is now the top congressman.

Only in America...

Re:Silicon Valley is fucked up

[arglebargle_xiv]

proposal to break up Amazon, Google, and Facebook,

That'll never happen, for the same reason that no-one could take on J.Edgar Hoover while he was alive, they have so much dirt on everyone in Congress and/or their families, relatives, business partners, ..., that they can instantly end the career of anyone who tries to take them on. Look what happened when the IRS took on Scientology, and Scientology in the 1980s were rank amateurs compared to the global surveillance machine that Fecebook and Google today are.

Re: Silicon Valley is fucked up

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we need new lawmakers then. Or maybe we shouldn't condemn everyone for life because they made a couple mistakes.

They are moderating like mad

[SuperKendall]

I personally agree that all of the major companies have long ago abandoned any pretense to being neutral platforms, and all should be excluded from 230 protections.

Maybe they could be given year long trial periods to see if they could actually behave with thread of 230 status being rescinded.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

The conservatives in Congress passed laws which impose legal liability on them for the content they host. And you're somehow surprised that they take an active stance now in moderating said content? Don't be a dumbass.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[ShanghaiBill]

all of the major companies have long ago abandoned any pretense to being neutral platforms, and all should be excluded from 230 protections.

Nancy Pelosi is not interested in making them more neutral. Her goal is to impose more political correctness and censorship.

Protections for free speech should be strengthened, not removed.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[tomhath]

Her goal is to send a message that they must stop funding rogue politicians like AOC and get back to letting her be the conduit of money flowing from her district to Washington.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[bobstreo]

all of the major companies have long ago abandoned any pretense to being neutral platforms, and all should be excluded from 230 protections.

Nancy Pelosi is not interested in making them more neutral. Her goal is to impose more political correctness and censorship.

Protections for free speech should be strengthened, not removed.

All Pelosi, Democrats, and Republicans know is that 2020 is an election year, and the troughs are ready for "campaign contributions". Most politicians tend to stay bought until a better offer comes along.

Threatening the hand(s) that feed you is a time honored tradition for bigger and better lobbying efforts...

Re:They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

As you can see by the moderation. Most people are against free speech now. Censorship can only be defeated through technological means. Let's hope somebody is out there doing something. We have to make the network bulletproof! It's our only hope.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, here's the problem. You make your technically bullet proof network.

Then it gets flooded with actual Nazis. As in "blood and soil", Hitler did nothing wrong, genocide people based on genetics, real life fucking Nazis.
Or if you go the other way and have real-world linked identities it gets flooded with, witch-hunting mobs of stuck-up pious religious idiots.

You can't win. It's not a technical problem. It's a pretty much unsolvable social problem. Neither of these groups belong in this century, and tech people were naive to think this would work.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all bullshit. You'll be able access what you want. There's enough bandwidth for everybody. And we just have to learn to piggyback on their signal. You have no right to censor anybody. I don't care how offensive you find it. We need bulletproof! Arguing about it is so very stupid.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

That works on the old static pull web.
You start a nazi blog, and people choose to visit it. So far so good.

Then you add a dynamic comment section. You are now defacto moderator. You allow nazi comments to complement your nazi blog. Also fine.
But you don't allow everything, deleting spam is YOUR responsibility. Nobody wants to crowd-source moderating YOUR shit.

This is way harder than you think. Most people don't want to write filters, they just passively browse. This is a mathematical law. For every comment there is like 100+ lurkers.
So you say: "Ah! What about subscription moderation lists". But then the list maker is defacto responsible for moderating.

Freenet already exists and it's fucking dead because it's not actually what 99.9% of people want.

It hasn't been solved, because it can't be fucking solved.
It's impossible.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[cpt kangarooski]

I personally agree that all of the major companies have long ago abandoned any pretense to being neutral platforms, and all should be excluded from 230 protections.

You idiot. The safe harbor of 47 USC 230 has nothing to do with being a neutral platform. In fact, the express goal was to encourage sites to remove 'unwholesome' content.

I think you need a brief history lesson:

Prior to the enactment of the safe harbor there were three applicable legal precedents. The first was the old rule that the publisher of defamatory content was responsible for it just as the author was, because they had the opportunity to review it and verify it. The second was Cubby, Inc. v Compuserve, Inc., 776 F.Supp. 135 (SDNY 1991), which held that online services that hosted defamatory content were not responsible for it if it was uploaded by the users without the knowledge or approval of the service. Basically, this gave sites protection so long as they didn't moderate. The third was Stratton Oakmont, Inc v. Prodigy Services, Co., 1995 WL 323710 (NY Sup. Ct. 1995) which held that if the online service moderated anything at all, then it was liable even for things that it approved, ignored, or had been in error about.

The result was predictable: the only two safe options were to 1) not moderate anything, which would lead to ads, spam, defamation, hate speech, etc. proliferating, or 2) not allow posting, which would prevent even benign users from having a voice.

At about the same time, Congress decided it wanted online services to take voluntary steps to remove porn from online. But none of the services were stupid enough to try, since they couldn't moderate everything perfectly, requiring them to either moderate nothing or not allow posting.

Exasperated, Congress gave the services protection -- if they moderated imperfectly it wouldn't be held against them, and as they couldn't compel moderation, it would be up to each site to determine how much or how little to do. Thus, a site could remove porn and spam and malware but allow users to talk with one another without careful policing of every single post.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[ShanghaiBill]

Then it gets flooded with actual Nazis. As in "blood and soil", Hitler did nothing wrong, genocide people based on genetics, real life fucking Nazis.

Even Nazis have a right to speak, and you have a right to disagree and speak back. That's what freedom means.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[Etcetera]

all of the major companies have long ago abandoned any pretense to being neutral platforms, and all should be excluded from 230 protections.

Nancy Pelosi is not interested in making them more neutral. Her goal is to impose more political correctness and censorship.

Protections for free speech should be strengthened, not removed.

Well, this goes both ways. The Left is arguably OK with kicking the right off of platforms (and a big chunk of Silicon Valley's tech workers are on the left), but it would prefer to use anti-free speech laws instead of regulation to do it. (Centralized power is useful when you're trying to Progress, after all.) The Right thinks free speech is free speech, but but is starting to be of the mindset that once you're a mass communications platform oligopoly, *some* regulation is needed to prevent abuse. (We don't let ILECs simply refuse to give someone a phone line because they dislike their viewpoint.)

Frankly, I think they're both right. The hyper-growth phase of the internet juggernauts has completed, and we're left now with both vertical monopolies and horizontal oligopolies. It's time to break everything and everyone up.

Separate out the advertising platforms, public clouds, ecommerce, and data brokering, and give social media sites a choice: stay relatively small and private and retain 230 protection and your bona-fide "community", or get big and public and be forced to carry content they may not agree with and disallow arbitrary "censorship".

We're already past the point of market failure when it comes to Alphabet and Amazon in general, and the data and advertising brokering of Facebook is also highly suspect, especially as it touches such a huge chunk of the publishing industry now.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't want to write filters, they just passively browse.

That is their problem. We can't let them cripple the network for their own laziness. We have to work around them, as if they don't exist.

Freenet has real latency problems. Hopefully they will be worked out. Distributed hosting is our best hope. Like Tor and bittorrent it needs to blend in better though.

It's impossible.

So are flying machines and rockets to the moon...

Re: They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

They donâ(TM)t have legal liability at all. That is what this is about. They are abusing this so badly right now to censor conservatives that they really deserve what is coming to them.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

You are merely a pro-censorship trollbot operated by mass media fascists and cease to amuse... You are free to go away.

Love ya

Toodles

Re:They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're a fucking pro-censorship fascist, & a moron to boot.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

2020 for democrats is about lining their pockets.

They are not going to dethrone an incumbent, but they can get a lot of money saying they do. If you play ball then you could get some of that fat cash too.

This is also a good time to start throwing out random threats in order to get those purses stuffed. In fact, they can say anything because it is unlikely it will be used against this in the next big cycle.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[AmiMoJo]

Freedom also means not being compelled to give Nazis a platform if you don't want to. USC 230 safe harbour protections do allow for moderation and selecting what kind of content the site wants to host.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are a Nazi calling the other AC a Nazi. Got it.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility."

Re:They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

>abandoned any pretense to being neutral platforms, and all should be excluded from 230 protections.

"Neutrality" is not a condition for 230 protection and absolutely should not be. The alternative would be that private companies would be required to host content that they may disagree with.

230 just helps ensure that private companies are not held liable for what individuals may state on their sites. The alternative there would be the equivalent of the phone company being held liable for accessory to murder because someone planned a murder on the phone. Or a restaurant be held liable for divorce payments because a couple planned an affair over dinner.

If Google, Facebook, Twitter, or any other private company chose, they could completely block all political statements they disagree with. That is what the First Amendment guarantees and what 230 protects.

Re: They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. Mahhhhhhh speech rights from a corporation should be absolute!!!!! - cry baby repubtard.

Re: They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, he isn't wrong. The people who get modded down cry free speech all the time. I don't think that'll fix the problem.

I mean look at APK for Christ sakes,
He cries censorship all the time.

Re: They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

Facts.

Re: They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Left is arguably OK with kicking the right off of platforms"

No; the left is ok with kicking the trolls/nazis/etc off of THEIR platform because that's their RIGHT. They do not owe you a platform. Don't like it, goto gab or 8chan.

Re:They are moderating like mad

[mea2214]

Even Nazis have a right to speak, and you have a right to disagree and speak back. That's what freedom means.

I hate Illinois Nazis!

Re:They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that freedom stop in the front of a lynching mob, an execution squad or a gas chamber? Or is it still on, but we just shoot them immediately after the event of racial purity?

Re: They are moderating like mad

[Etcetera]

"The Left is arguably OK with kicking the right off of platforms"

No; the left is ok with kicking the trolls/nazis/etc off of THEIR platform because that's their RIGHT. They do not owe you a platform. Don't like it, goto gab or 8chan.

And there you, Anonymous Coward, have identified the problem. You want to kick a bona-fide Nazi off the platform? Fine. The problem is that the left has convinced itself that everyone on the right are Nazis, because the left seems to have gone insane. As a result, now we have to have a "when push comes to shove" discussion about how the final say is regulated on large-scale comms platforms.

tl;dr: This is why we can't have nice things.

Re: They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

They are censoring shitstains for threats and outright lying.

numbnuts

Re: They are moderating like mad

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that the reich wing retards think the first amendment applies to private property?

Politician IQ needs raising first

[presidenteloco]

If politicians could demonstrate an accurate understanding of science and technology, perhaps we could trust them to regulate it....

But, um, no.

Re: Politician IQ needs raising first

[Anonymous Coward]

FANG will welcome regulations. Easiest way for them to escape lawsuits. Just follow the law and keep making tons of money.

Re:Politician IQ needs raising first

[fustakrakich]

How about just not reelecting them? Only we can turn over the house 100% instead of the usual 5 or 10, every two years the opportunity stares us in the face... It's worth a try, don't you think?

Re:Politician IQ needs raising first

[luis_a_espinal]

If politicians could demonstrate an accurate understanding of science and technology, perhaps we could trust them to regulate it.... But, um, no.

Maybe we should elect different politicians? Or even better, some of us who know (or think that know) this shit might run for office.

Till then, all we do is doubt everything and resist reflectively.

I mean, yeah, our political class is shit, but then, what does that make us? At the end of the day, we do need some regulation for the googles and facebooks in this country. And that will happen one way or another, so we better start wising the fuck up and take a more active part in the political system if we want to have a voice in how this shit goes down.

Re:Politician IQ needs raising first

[Koby77]

That's why I wouldn't regulate the big internet corporations. I would break them up for being monopolies.

Re: Politician IQ needs raising first

[phantomfive]

That kind of thing gives more power to lobbyists, because they don't retire, and continually gain experience in how to manipulate fresh politicians.

Re: Politician IQ needs raising first

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it gives them less. They have to buy new people every two years instead of every four decades.

Re: Politician IQ needs raising first

[phantomfive]

An experienced politician keeps raising the price. Check out the Medicare “doc fix” for an example. Those politicains got a ton of cash from the lobbyists.

Re: Politician IQ needs raising first

[fustakrakich]

You didn't pay attention. If you don't reelect the "experienced" politician, the lobbyist has to make a new attempt on the next one. And if the next one fails, he is supposed to be voted out also. It's up to the voters to fix the problem. Nobody else can do it. With current reelection rates, there is no incentive to fix anything.

Re:Politician IQ needs raising first

[Anonymous Coward]

In a normal country, the politicians express the their will or the will of the voters that something has to be done. Then they turn the issue over to regulation authorities whose job it is to actually understand the science and technology and device the regulations as needed. What I would like the politicians to have is more understanding of philosophy of the state, the people, the historical perspective and the clarity of thought in all of their activities. Presently many elected politicians servery lack all of those.

Re: Politician IQ needs raising first

[phantomfive]

It's up to the voters to fix the problem. Nobody else can do it

That's true. You can't help it if the voters want to elect a king.

Re:Politician IQ needs raising first

[AmiMoJo]

Problem is that running for office means getting savaged, so you need first and foremost to be willing and able to put up with that before any other credentials are considered.

As younger politicians come up it will be interesting to see how they deal with having a public internet history. Unfortunately so far it seems to heavily favour post-truth populists whose gimmick is that their supporters know they are full of shit and don't care about that time they called someone the N word.

Re: Politician IQ needs raising first

[fustakrakich]

So, when majority rule fails, what's the backup plan?

Re: Politician IQ needs raising first

[phantomfive]

Anarchy and violence until people get tired of it. On a more personal level, recognize what is coming and prepare for it.

Re: Politician IQ needs raising first

[santa2]

Her goal is to impose more political correctness and censorship. Protections for free speech should be strengthened, not removed. https://xender.pro/ https://discord.software/ https://omegle.onl/

Re: Politician IQ needs raising first

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to have majority rule first before it can fail. We don't have that in the US, by design.

Re: Politician IQ needs raising first

[fustakrakich]

Yeah you do have majority rule, with a minor variation for the president, but it's still close enough. If the people want to change the system, they can. There is no excuse. The voters are responsible for the people they reelect over and over.

Re: Politician IQ needs raising first

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes two thirds of both houses of congress to make change. That's the opposite of majority rule. Come back when you learn how the US works.

Re: Politician IQ needs raising first

[fustakrakich]

It takes two thirds of both houses of congress to make change.

So what? People just have to elect the politicians that will make the change. The vote by the people, where it counts, works by simple majority. You have to try it before you can convince anybody that it doesn't work. You still can't blame anybody else but the voters. Even their apathy has power over the system, and is effectively exploited by some parties. In fact it's the apathy that props up the corruption everyone pretends to lament. So, really, save your breath, and quit making excuses, or at least be creative make up some new ones.

Re: Politician IQ needs raising first

[Anonymous Coward]

I miss the old /. days when math wasn't hard for commenters. Fuck off troll.

Re: Politician IQ needs raising first

[fustakrakich]

I miss the old /. days when math wasn't hard for commenters.

Yes, do tell! Back at ya, friend! It's been a slice!

Top US Citizen Says Capital Hill's Self-Regulating

[Anonymous Coward]

...Days 'Probably Should Be' Over

And it applies just as much to politicians as it does to silicon valley CEOs. It is time for Big Brother to work for the people against the leaders, not for the leaders against the people.

Do your part to shine big brother's stern gaze on politicians and CEOs, so big brother can give spankings where spankings are due, maybe even kinky ones if they are out of view :)

THOSE SITES!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are allowing bad things to be posted about me! Like... the truth that i'm a raging alcoholic without a fucking clue!

Shut them down! It's hate speech! yeah! and get me a drink.

Good For Google, Bad For Everyone Else

[mentil]

Google would be a-ok with Section 230 getting the axe. That'd mean that advertisers and other corporate partners would have an even greater portion of the Internet's presence, on Youtube and Google Search. They'd heavily restrict who can post to Youtube, saving them tons of money, and being able to blame the government, just like how Microsoft was able to blame the government when they were allowed/forced to turn over data stored in other countries. Twitter and Reddit would be reduced to verified accounts, with so few posts it's feasible to have moderators pre-approve all posts. Twitter is about the only social media site that'd be able to survive this transition, as it could easily turn into a 'read-only' website for the plebes to read announcements by VIPs.
Twitch would be reduced to a couple dozen known quantities being streamed, everyone else being muted and only allowed to stream whitelisted unmodded games.

It's not just the USA talking about this -- New Zealand, Australia and the UK are also talking about it. Just waiting for the fifth eye now...

Re:Good For Google, Bad For Everyone Else

[mentil]

Strike that, seems Canada is getting in on the act too.

Re:Good For Google, Bad For Everyone Else

[dryriver]

Ironically it is the LEFT - supposedly champions of the, cough cough, working man who doesn't own a TV channel, radio station or a newspaper - that are trying to shut down all avenues of unfettered free speech online. Why? Because the left almost everywhere is a TOOL of a small handful of very powerful and very dominant industrialist families that originate in Europe and have been at the top of the global heap much longer than any one of us have been alive. You see, if you are devious enough to pretend that you "care about the common person", and repeat that message often and dumbed down enough, many a "common person" starts to believe that you are being sincere. Control the LEFT thoroughly, and you can simply stop any genuine revolution or pitchfork uprising dead in its tracks if it does actually start to happen. Just keep pretending that you "work for the average Joe", repeat that message ad absurdum, and in the meantime feed average Joes and Janes around the world watered down policies that ensure that only CERTAIN people get to have real power in the world. There is also a very particular type of internet content that these people are trying to shut down, and it is Youtube channels like A CALL FOR AN UPRISING - way too much brutal truth being broadcast there for the world's governing elite. Yes, the internet is going to get censored more and more. Too much of what was supposed to stay in the dark is being brought out into the open across the internet. No, that will not help these elites - once the internet IS censored, many people will start to realize that these Elites genuinely exist, genuinely control Trillions of Dollars in money, and genuinely want brainwashed sheep to keep funneling money into their Bank Of International Settlements private accounts. So the internet WILL get censored. But this will backfire on the elites - nobody wants a world where your ISP basically delivers a Disneynet into your home or to your phone. The elites will do themselves in by censoring free, truthful speech online. Let them do it.

Re:Good For Google, Bad For Everyone Else

[Anonymous Coward]

Google would be a-ok with Section 230 getting the axe. That'd mean that advertisers and other corporate partners would have an even greater portion of the Internet's presence, on Youtube and Google Search. They'd heavily restrict who can post to Youtube, saving them tons of money, and being able to blame the government, just like how Microsoft was able to blame the government when they were allowed/forced to turn over data stored in other countries. Twitter and Reddit would be reduced to verified accounts, with so few posts it's feasible to have moderators pre-approve all posts. Twitter is about the only social media site that'd be able to survive this transition, as it could easily turn into a 'read-only' website for the plebes to read announcements by VIPs.
Twitch would be reduced to a couple dozen known quantities being streamed, everyone else being muted and only allowed to stream whitelisted unmodded games.

It's not just the USA talking about this -- New Zealand, Australia and the UK are also talking about it. Just waiting for the fifth eye now...

Good?

Re: Good For Google, Bad For Everyone Else

[Anonymous Coward]

I donâ(TM)t disagree, but here: .............

Use some of those next time.

Re:Good For Google, Bad For Everyone Else

[Anonymous Coward]

Nazi tears are delicious. You are a threat to humanity and thus have no rights.

Nazi Punks Fuck Off

numbnuts

what is this Privacy Options nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

If I have to dismiss an annoying modal Privacy dialog every time I visit Slashdot then I will not visit Slashdot much any more. Instead I will be reading the same or similar stories on SolyentNews.

I don't keep cookies so the Privacy monstrosity pops up on every Slashdot page.

If you want to shoot all of your loyal customers then you are right on target!

Re:what is this Privacy Options nonsense

[Highdude702]

Use noscript/safescript. That shit goes away everywhere.

Yeah , that isn't saying what you might think

[Crashmarik]

It's more like we have picked the winners and don't want to see anything "DISRUPTED" at this point so lets introduce lots of friction for would be new players.

Re:Yeah , that isn't saying what you might think

[dryriver]

In Soviet Russia, YOU somehow disrupt companies 100,000,000 times more powerful than you. =) Good comment.

Re:Yeah , that isn't saying what you might think

[Anonymous Coward]

This comment gets it. Businesses tend to support adding new restrictions under the guise of safety/precaution/concern when really they're mostly concerned with making the barrier to entry even higher, to make things more difficult for new entrants.

Right when we're going to tech war with China...

[Anonymous Coward]

Destroy all our greatest companies. Can always count on the Dems for great ideas, amirite?

Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

So...she's officially saying "censor the internet", right? That's what the goal is here?

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

So she's just officially saying "Government censorship of the internet" right? That's the goal here?

No, she's saying:

"Government censorship of the Right" on the internet.

Re:Censorship

[_Sharp'r_]

Yep, and the companies she's talking about have been supporting government takeovers.

I guess (if they've thought about it) they must figure they'll be in a position to influence things so that as industry incumbents they get protection against future competition. It doesn't seem like it's totally worked out that way for them in Europe as the EU has started flexing their muscles to control parts of the Internet.

For the rest of us, let's try and stand on the one-time Schelling point of no government regulation of the Internet as long as possible. It's already been weakened by allowing more and more taxes and by the calls for the federal government to enforce rules on what ISPs must do or not do, but there's still time to say "leave us alone!" instead.

Otherwise we're going down the path where various industry players pay off the various regulators and politicians to get their views enacted in law and we just get to suffer with the limitations on innovation of whatever they happen to be.

Re: Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL.

I swear the right are the biggest group of hipocritcal idiots I've ever fucking seen.

You want to control everyone else and talk about rights, but as soon as a company practices and excercises their rights to not want to put up with terrorist and Cp bullshit, you cucks scream but what about my rights? All while ignoring that corporations were ruled as people and have rights as well.

Sickening.

Re: Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Your last paragraph is already happening. And has been happening since before we were born.

Censorship

[GhostBond]

So she's just officially saying "Government censorship of the internet" right? That's the goal here?

Sherman Act on telcom first!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those mofos need to be split up! Back to Title II and then 230 makes sense.

"Privilege"

[Solandri]

"230 is a gift to them, and I don't think they are treating it with the respect that they should," she said. "And so I think that that could be a question mark and in jeopardy.... For the privilege of 230, there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it, and it is not out of the question that that could be removed."

Apparently she thinks that putting up a bulletin board that anyone can tack messages onto is a privilege which must be granted to you by the government. How absolutely backwards. The people grant government the privilege to restrict things the people think might need restricting, not the other way around. 230 was never a right given to the people. The people already had the right. 230 was just a reminder to the government of that fact, so that it wouldn't try to do something silly like infringe on it, forcing the people to go through a lengthy multi-year court battle before the SCotUS would finally reaffirm that The People have a fundamental right to freedom of expression without government interference. 230 exists for the same reason as the Bill of Rights - not because some law gave people those rights, but as a reminder to government not to try to infringe those rights.

You say you wanted freedom of expression. You got it. If this unfiltered view into what people are really thinking and saying makes you uncomfortable, that's your problem not theirs. Hiding it by contravening 230 is the technological equivalent of sticking your head in the sand. All the stuff that you dislike may disappear from your sight, but it hasn't actually gone away - it's still there, in people's minds, being spoken in private, and posted on non-major sites. If you feel these thoughts are wrong and need to be corrected, the proper fix is to educate and convince people so they agree with you and no longer think that way. Not to sweep it under the rug to make yourself feel like the house is cleaner because you can't see the dirt anymore.

Re:"Privilege"

[rmdingler]

Bingo.

The catch to the freedoms of speech and expression you enjoy is that the people you disagree with get them, too... and no one is guaranteed the right not to be offended.

On another note, politicians on both sides of the aisle are the problem. Apologies if you're a heavily invested fan of one team.

Re:"Privilege"

[mentil]

Section 230 is about legal liability. If someone infected with measles wants to sue Facebook in civil court because they didn't shut down antivaxx posts, Section 230 protects them from that. If someone posts hate speech/death threats/whatever to Facebook, that prevents Facebook from being legally liable for hosting it. It's not about preventing the Attorney General from fining Facebook or throwing Zuck in jail over posts some rando made on Facebook.

Re:"Privilege"

[mentil]

Not only, that should say.

Re:"Privilege"

[cpt kangarooski]

230 exists for the same reason as the Bill of Rights - not because some law gave people those rights, but as a reminder to government not to try to infringe those rights.

You are a colossal dipshit.

The safe harbor exists to get rid of porn and indecent material online. That's literally the purpose of it, that's why it was part of the Communications Decency Act.

Without the safe harbor, sites that allowed users to post and that moderated would arguably be liable for every post that wasn't removed from the site as if the site had published it themselves, under Stratton Oakmont, Inc v. Prodigy Services, Co., 1995 WL 323710 (NY Sup. Ct. 1995), a court case where Prodigy (remember them?) was liable to Stratton Oakmont (the crooked Wall Street firm from Wolf of Wall Street) for a user who posted about how they were crooked. The reason Prodigy was in trouble was that they had moderators who removed spam and porn and such from their boards, and who hadn't removed that particular post.

So no one was going to do what the prudes in Congress in the mid-90s wanted, and remove porn online, because it would expose the sites to total liability for everything else. Giving them protections so that failure to remove user posts wasn't seen as an endorsement was necessary to allow them to remove porn. As it happens, it's convenient for other reasons too and should be protected.

But never forget that the express purpose of the thing is to encourage private actors from engaging in what would be censorship if the government mandated it.

Re:"Privilege"

[Anonymous Coward]

You say you wanted freedom of expression. You got it.

If we are to judge based upon the views of young people today, particularly college students who shout down speakers, demand trigger warnings and want everywhere to be a "safe" place, then it would seem that the left no longer wants freedom of expression. How far indeed they have fallen from the heady days of the free speech movement in the 60s. Their children got a look at what free speech is like and ended up not liking the view.

Re:"Privilege"

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is guaranteed a voice on a private platform.

numbnuts

Re:Crybaby Republican can't be a nazi cuz TOS, aww

[dryriver]

5 years from now you will not be able to do what you just did - post anonymously on a platform like Slashdot, because anonimity only has been made illegal. We'll see just whose inbred faggot ass goes crying to his mommy when that happens. =) THEEEEY TOOOK MYYYY ANOOONYYYMOUUUS COOOWARRRRD POOOSTIIING RIIIIIGHTSSS AWAAAAY !!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO !!! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!

Don't understand regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

If politicians could demonstrate an accurate understanding of science and technology, perhaps we could trust them to regulate it....

But, um, no.

They generally don't fully understand anything they regulate. What they understand is how to get elected.

Unfortunately getting elected doesn't make you actually qualified for office. It just gives you the office. It's like picking your CEO by popularity contest every year: it gives the employees some protection but at the cost of product quality and a lot of infighting.

Another Ad from Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it, why is slashdot doing this? Pelosi is a moron, she voted for teh very laws that allow tech companies to do what she is now complaining about.

The reason for this "article" isn't the CDA but "presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren's proposal".

Freedom of speech

[AHuxley]

Freedom after speech.
Freedom of the press. A fully protected occupation for US citizens.
The freedom to publish.
The ability to use social media as a utility to petition the government via a gov site on social media.
Publishers and the press should also get their tools of the trade (the internet) protected from the tyranny of government.
Should all gov approved US journalists be university educated from a gov funded and approved university?
Do US journalists need to pass a federal exam and get federal accreditation every year to be "the press"?
Do all US journalists only get their full freedoms protected if a gov considered them approved journalists?
Does a US journalist need to get big gov permission from their local gov/parish/town/state to enjoy the First Amendment?
The freedom to talk about the politics of a movie. To publish the math of DRM and crypto. To create a very funny political meme.
To publish investigative reporting on any topic using the internet.
To publish links to what a whistleblower said. To comment on what a whistleblower released to the world.
The freedom to LOL at a faith. The freedom to LOL at politics. The freedom to LOL at an actor, movie script.
The freedom to recall past gov/mil policy.
The freedom for the US press to accept, publish and comment on the Pentagon Papers.
To share a reviews of junk weak crypto and DRM code after publication. To quote junk crypto math.

No! This isn't what it seems.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not about putting the screws to google this is about the other foot dropping on exactly what everyone swore wasn't happening when the CDA passed in the first place!

Re: Right when we're going to tech war with China.

[Anonymous Coward]

More like: destroy new companies (and individual liberty). Our best companies will be just fine. And they'll be all there is.

Top US Congressman?

[Anonymous Coward]

This kike slut is not a top US anything.

This isn't that hard.

[msauve]

The issue was pretty well resolved decades ago with telcom - divide content/service providers from carriers. Current issues revolve around allowing the two to intermingle.

Re: This isn't that hard.

[Anonymous Coward]

This x infinity.

This is the problem right here. Conflict of interest.

One thing that can't be silenced

[TigerPlish]

The Underground Press.

Long before this was a free country, our Revolution (the War of Insurrection, whatever the fuck you want to call what we started in 1776) was fueled by printing presses, literally underground. In basements. In the back of shops. That kind of thing.

If the Internet is censored, well, there's still ink and paper. Shoving leaflets at passerby did contribute greatly to ending the Vietnam war.

What, you think it couldn't work?

Sometimes the oldest ways are still the best ways.

Fuck censorship. Fuck it with a splintered phone pole.

Other than convenient content delivery and a means to expedite, mail order, what has the Internet done for us lately anyway? Maybe it's time to just cut the cancerous part away.

Re: "Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times ove

[Anonymous Coward]

Please post links to the 12-25 times, plus the Chinese thing. I am interested in learning more about this.

Re:LYING FAGGOT KENDALL AGREES, NOBODY CARES AT AL

[Anonymous Coward]

You stalking SuperKendall is tedious, repetitive, and unfruitful. You're a retard.

Re:LYING FAGGOT KENDALL AGREES, NOBODY CARES AT AL

[Anonymous Coward]

Well stalking is stupid but SuperKendall is an extremely intellectually dishonest far right winger who routinely delivers propaganda ranging from merely misleading to outright factually false.

Re: Crybaby Republican can't be a nazi cuz TOS, aw

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that's his goal right? Why do you think they poison the well? These people aren't happy until you are miserable. Don't entertain them.

Besides, corporations do not owe us a platform. Stop blaming the left, maybe they are just tired of putting up with all the troll/Nazi bullshit and backlash. That's their right, don't like it, go somewhere else. This shit isn't hard.

Why do you think I use slashdot? Because it allows any thoughts to be transmitted. That's the beauty of itX

Re: Right when we're going to tech war with China.

[Anonymous Coward]

A tech war with China we can't fucking win. Great show chap.

Why is the right scared of everything that isn't fucking white or green? Blaming the left practicing their rights as a corporation. Don't like it, go somewhere else. It isn't hard.

"Top US Congressman"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever wrote that headline about Nancy Pelosi really needs a new set of glasses...

Re: LYING FAGGOT KENDALL AGREES, NOBODY CARES AT A

[santa2]

ago abandoned any pretense to being neutral platforms, and all should be excluded from 230 protections. https://xender.pro/ https://discord.software/ https://omegle.onl/

Re:Crybaby Republican can't be a nazi cuz TOS, aww

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize you are an anonymous nazi coward, right?

Is dryriver your real name, nazi numbnuts.