Joe Biden's desire to make changes to Section 230 of the communications decency act

Discussion of cultural, religious, political or irrational subjects of any type, such as UFOs, wacko cults, mad dictators, horrible cult bands, ridiculous publications, whatever
Post Reply
User avatar
JuiceBeetle
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 681
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Joe Biden's desire to make changes to Section 230 of the communications decency act

Post by JuiceBeetle » Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:32 pm

Kumioko on discord wrote: So has anyone else been reading about the joe Biden wanting g to revoke section 230? Or at least change it?
Heres onecarticle but theres been several in the last couple days.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thever ... act-revoke
This would severely affect the WMF projects as they are now!

Princess Emblyn:Ye it would affect everyone a lot tbh
Reguyla:Yeah my guess is this is the scare tactic but a smaller bill will pass as a "compromise" that has some changes but isn't as draconian.

User avatar
Abd
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 749
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: Joe Biden's desire to make changes to Section 230 of the communications decency act

Post by Abd » Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:58 pm

For Lomax v. WMF, I needed to research Section 230. It has been interpreted far beyond the original intention. Section 230's intent was to allow free speech, but was interpreted to allow utterly outrageous behavior by "service providers," with no accountability at all. An extreme. With copyright, there is an appeal procedure, which is actually well-designed. Not with libel issues. I would suggest clarifying that a take-down notice for libel should be respected the same way as similar for copyright. The procedure creates actionable responsibility. The way it's been used by, say, Wikipedia, allows libel to be maintained without any responsible speaker.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Joe Biden's desire to make changes to Section 230 of the communications decency act

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:47 pm

Abd wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:58 pm
For Lomax v. WMF, I needed to research Section 230. It has been interpreted far beyond the original intention. Section 230's intent was to allow free speech, but was interpreted to allow utterly outrageous behavior by "service providers," with no accountability at all. An extreme. With copyright, there is an appeal procedure, which is actually well-designed. Not with libel issues. I would suggest clarifying that a take-down notice for libel should be respected the same way as similar for copyright. The procedure creates actionable responsibility. The way it's been used by, say, Wikipedia, allows libel to be maintained without any responsible speaker.
Wasn't even Wikipedia that started it--this "idea" was being pushed even before the CDA by early Internet-industry types like Pierre Omidyar and Yahoo's founders. They wanted to run forums/social media without being liable for any garbage their users might post. Classic libertarian propagandizing that somehow became "law".

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Joe Biden's desire to make changes to Section 230 of the communications decency act

Post by ericbarbour » Fri May 29, 2020 12:45 am

Biden my ass, today Trump attempted to promulgate an "Executive Order" to cancel Section 230. Because Twitter was mean to him.

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/28/86393275 ... -companies

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/busi ... peech.html

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Joe Biden's desire to make changes to Section 230 of the communications decency act

Post by ericbarbour » Fri May 29, 2020 7:44 pm

Joe Biden doesn’t like Trump’s Twitter order, but still wants to revoke Section 230

It took Beltway politicians TWENTY YEARS to figure out they didn't like Section 230. Because it's being used against them.

If this weren't so disgusting I would lol.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Joe Biden's desire to make changes to Section 230 of the communications decency act

Post by ericbarbour » Fri May 29, 2020 8:08 pm

The Times weighs in again. But this article was written by a former Metafilter user, who asked Metafilter founder Matt Haughey for his "opinions". As you know, I dislike Metafilter for its extremely aggressive and paranoiac moderation, plus a certain tendency by the mods to allow certain users to start neverending arguments, in direct violation of the 'rules". Similar to Wikipedia, some users are "more equal" than others. Basically Haughey is a practiced hypocrite and a liar. (Just like Jimbo. And Trump too? Funny how the hypocrites and liars end up running things.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/tech ... itter.html

Are they spluttering about this on Metafilter? Of course:
https://www.metafilter.com/187277/The-P ... s-the-Mods

Post Reply