Slashdot Mirror
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. "
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. "
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Maybe they could be given year long trial periods to see if they could actually behave with thread of 230 status being rescinded.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If politicians could demonstrate an accurate understanding of science and technology, perhaps we could trust them to regulate it....
But, um, no.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
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...
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
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!
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.
Destroy all our greatest companies. Can always count on the Dems for great ideas, amirite?
So she's just officially saying "Government censorship of the internet" right? That's the goal here?
Those mofos need to be split up! Back to Title II and then 230 makes sense.
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.
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.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
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 !!!
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
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.
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 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.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
You stalking SuperKendall is tedious, repetitive, and unfruitful. You're a retard.
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.
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/