Section 230 - REPEAL IT?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Section 230 - REPEAL IT?
Should it be repealed? Is it possible to draw a reasonably objective line between a provider of interactive computer services (passive) and a publisher of news (active)?
- Arjen
- Posts: 467
- Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant
Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?
Without such a law, propaganda would have an easier time, or all kinds of horrific stuff.
What should replace it?
~Immanuel Kant
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?
A rating system based on fact-checking. Prior to posting, a bi-partisan moderator group would classify the content as "personal opinion", "false rumor", "fake news" and any other categories that would give the reader a heads-up that what they are reading is non-factual.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?
The decree of King Donald I?
Seriously, there is a broader fault line that comes from private companies becoming so huge and powerful that they end up taking on governance roles once reserved to the executive arm. A small example would be how the supermarket duopoly in Australia regulated toilet roll purchases.
- Arjen
- Posts: 467
- Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant
Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?
Due to censorship and meddling by foreign nations into the free world's elections and news, now the free world is effectively making rules to cebsor it's own media. That leaves the way free to manipulate the censors and spread propaganda, while censoring truth by mistake of the censors (benefit of the doubt here). Is tbis the right direction to go?
That is exactly what Donald Trump thinks. And, given the fact that the facts about the Biden's China (and Ukraine) collusion are being suppressed, something should change. Even the press secretary of the White House was blocked! It is censorship by a company. Which is exactly what the CCP is looking for I might add.Greta wrote: ↑October 19th, 2020, 7:35 pm The decree of King Donald I?
Seriously, there is a broader fault line that comes from private companies becoming so huge and powerful that they end up taking on governance roles once reserved to the executive arm. A small example would be how the supermarket duopoly in Australia regulated toilet roll purchases.
You all know my feelings about the CCP. This is why. It is an incredible danger to the freedoms of all the people of the world. What do you propose?
Any specific idea on that?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 19th, 2020, 7:31 pm I don't agree with the idea of a "Communications Decency Act" in general, but Section 230 is a good thing. The idea expressed in Section 230 should be codified independently.
I like your idea in the sense that a member of the public can still spew general discontent. And in the sense that news would be fact checked. However, do you remember our discussions about BLM and such? I said it was communist ideology under the guise of anti racism long before I could prove it. Likely, it would have been censored. Or this moment with Biden's laptop, which is now censored after someone lied and pretended it was the Russians. The DNI came forward and stated there is nu Russia meddling here, nor is there reason to think so, nor is or was there an investigation into Russia. How to orebent gross mistakes like this?Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 19th, 2020, 7:00 pm A rating system based on fact-checking. Prior to posting, a bi-partisan moderator group would classify the content as "personal opinion", "false rumor", "fake news" and any other categories that would give the reader a heads-up that what they are reading is non-factual.
~Immanuel Kant
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?
Trump's point (or perhaps more accurately, the point of the team who were tasked with retroactively finding a justification for his outrage at being censured) is that if the likes of Twitter are going to filter the content placed on their site for accuracy, as a conventional newspaper does (or at least claims/aspires to do) with its journalism, then they should be treated like a newspaper when it comes to being responsible for that content too. It's a consistency argument. In other words: "If I say something inaccurate or harmful on your platform its your fault for not controlling me.".
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?
The law means that the platform is not held responsible for the content posted on it. Without the law the platform would presumably be more inclined to censure or censor than they currently are, for fear of being prosecuted. If I were them I'd be inclined to metaphorically write "may contain nuts" on everything, just to cover myself, like the food manufacturers do.Arjen wrote:If it is repealed, what should come in it's place?
Without such a law, propaganda would have an easier time, or all kinds of horrific stuff.
How would you appoint a bi-partisan moderator group and what means would you use to assess their bi-partisanship? Would you make it a legal requirement for platforms like Twitter to appoint a group like this? If you did, at what point in the development of a social media platform would this legal requirement be triggered? If I start developing a social media platform today, do I first need to appoint this group?Marvin_Edwards wrote:A rating system based on fact-checking. Prior to posting, a bi-partisan moderator group would classify the content as "personal opinion", "false rumor", "fake news" and any other categories that would give the reader a heads-up that what they are reading is non-factual.
This is consistent with your belief in the strongest possible form of free speech.Terrapin Station wrote:I don't agree with the idea of a "Communications Decency Act" in general, but Section 230 is a good thing. The idea expressed in Section 230 should be codified independently.
Yes, the broader problem is the general one of private companies growing to have size, power and structure which is comparable to that of nation states. I'm intrigued about the Australian toilet paper regulation example. I'll look into that one! At the start of the pandemic there was panic buying and shortages of toilet paper here too. There was some half-serious-half-humourous discussion on news programmes about the possible psychology of that. (Everyone loves a toilet story.)Greta wrote:The decree of King Donald I?
Seriously, there is a broader fault line that comes from private companies becoming so huge and powerful that they end up taking on governance roles once reserved to the executive arm. A small example would be how the supermarket duopoly in Australia regulated toilet roll purchases.
Fair enough. But if there is no problem regulating the content, should they also be held responsible for it by the repeal of section 230? That seems to be what's at issue. Or, as private companies (or as companies owned by shareholders), are they free to do absolutely anything they like with the content people use them to broadcast, even if they've grown to a size which makes them an institution? As an extreme example to illustrate the point, should Twitter be allowed to completely change the content of a tweet by a prominent public figure like Trump or Biden?LuckyR wrote:In a perfect world consumers of content could figure out what is fake. Obviously we live in a very imperfect world where many turn off their critical mind if the subject matter is to their liking. Thus I see no problem if a service provider wants to regulate what is broadcast on their bandwidth.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?
Leaving aside the accuracy or otherwise of your specific claims on specific issues I think the general point you make here is a good one. If there is to be such a thing as fact checking, at what point does the fact checking occur? As you've said, some claims might initially be unsupported by evidence but evidence might be presented, or come to light, later. Too late if the initial claim never got beyond a censor. I think a complete free speech advocate like Terrapin Station would say that all of this should be left to the free market of ideas. This presumably means that everyone, including the platforms themselves, like Twitter, are players in that market and are free to say what they like, free to broadcast the words of others and free to decline to do so for any reason that they choose, and the market will judge them accordingly. So in a completely free market for speech all censorship, other than that carried out by government, is permissible, so long as it doesn't involve physical restraint against the speaker's will.Arjen wrote:I like your idea in the sense that a member of the public can still spew general discontent. And in the sense that news would be fact checked. However, do you remember our discussions about BLM and such? I said it was communist ideology under the guise of anti racism long before I could prove it. Likely, it would have been censored. Or this moment with Biden's laptop, which is now censored after someone lied and pretended it was the Russians. The DNI came forward and stated there is nu Russia meddling here, nor is there reason to think so, nor is or was there an investigation into Russia. How to orebent gross mistakes like this?
In a completely free market for speech, if I owned Twitter I'd be within my rights to, for example, ban Donald Trump or Joe Biden without stating any reason, or change their words in order to claim that they've said something that they haven't, or anything else as long as it doesn't involve physically harming/restraining them against their will.
- Arjen
- Posts: 467
- Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant
Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?
Section 230 wrote: 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
(1)The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2)These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3)The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4)The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5)Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b)PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—
(1)to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2)to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4)to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5)to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d)Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
(e)Effect on other laws
(1)No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2)No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4)No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(5)No effect on sex trafficking law Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—
(A)any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
(B)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
(C)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
(f)DefinitionsAs used in this section:
(1)Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
(2)Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
(4)Access software providerThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A)filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B)pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C)transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
~Immanuel Kant
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?
It would depend upon the nature of the claim. Here are some more ideas:Arjen wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 1:37 amI like your idea in the sense that a member of the public can still spew general discontent. And in the sense that news would be fact checked. However, do you remember our discussions about BLM and such? I said it was communist ideology under the guise of anti racism long before I could prove it. Likely, it would have been censored. Or this moment with Biden's laptop, which is now censored after someone lied and pretended it was the Russians. The DNI came forward and stated there is nu Russia meddling here, nor is there reason to think so, nor is or was there an investigation into Russia. How to orebent gross mistakes like this?Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 19th, 2020, 7:00 pm A rating system based on fact-checking. Prior to posting, a bi-partisan moderator group would classify the content as "personal opinion", "false rumor", "fake news" and any other categories that would give the reader a heads-up that what they are reading is non-factual.
1. Every person is entitled to express their opinion.
2. But a person is should not be entitled to intentionally spread misinformation.
3. Any statement that goes under the guise of "information" should be fact-checked before it is published.
4. Every organization that deliberately spreads false information under the guise of information should be liable to be sued for libel or slander.
5. School children should be taught Social Studies that covers examples of exaggeration, false information, propaganda, and rumors to prepare them to detect these manipulative practices when used by politicians and news media. Hopefully this will offer them some immunity to disinformation.
Oh, and of course, BLM is not a communist ideology. I assume you are speaking out of your ass. (And I did have a social studies class that dealt with marketing ploys and how not to be deceived by advertising).
- Arjen
- Posts: 467
- Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant
Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?
The whole question is: should it be left to corporations to decide what to censor when it comes to newspaper or, god forbid, press secretaries of the White house?!Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 5:15 am Leaving aside the accuracy or otherwise of your specific claims on specific issues I think the general point you make here is a good one. If there is to be such a thing as fact checking, at what point does the fact checking occur? As you've said, some claims might initially be unsupported by evidence but evidence might be presented, or come to light, later. Too late if the initial claim never got beyond a censor. I think a complete free speech advocate like Terrapin Station would say that all of this should be left to the free market of ideas. This presumably means that everyone, including the platforms themselves, like Twitter, are players in that market and are free to say what they like, free to broadcast the words of others and free to decline to do so for any reason that they choose, and the market will judge them accordingly. So in a completely free market for speech all censorship, other than that carried out by government, is permissible, so long as it doesn't involve physical restraint against the speaker's will.
In a completely free market for speech, if I owned Twitter I'd be within my rights to, for example, ban Donald Trump or Joe Biden without stating any reason, or change their words in order to claim that they've said something that they haven't, or anything else as long as it doesn't involve physically harming/restraining them against their will.
I say no. Perhaps section 230 should be amended to allow for "official sources" and let the free market punish the sources that were wrong?
LuckyR wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 3:02 am In a perfect world consumers of content could figure out what is fake. Obviously we live in a very imperfect world where many turn off their critical mind if the subject matter is to their liking. Thus I see no problem if a service provider wants to regulate what is broadcast on their bandwidth.
A voice for extreme right(s) of the corporations. What if that means that a corrupt politician gets into office? Which COULD have been prevented, if only the people knew? Or, to silence the government if the government means to alert the population with concerns about such a company? For example by terminating the official account of the press secretary of the White House?
BLM is. I am in the process of gather more information. I am thinking to include Qanon in the same topic, or notMarvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 7:00 am It would depend upon the nature of the claim. Here are some more ideas:
1. Every person is entitled to express their opinion.
2. But a person is should not be entitled to intentionally spread misinformation.
3. Any statement that goes under the guise of "information" should be fact-checked before it is published.
4. Every organization that deliberately spreads false information under the guise of information should be liable to be sued for libel or slander.
5. School children should be taught Social Studies that covers examples of exaggeration, false information, propaganda, and rumors to prepare them to detect these manipulative practices when used by politicians and news media. Hopefully this will offer them some immunity to disinformation.
Oh, and of course, BLM is not a communist ideology. I assume you are speaking out of your ass. (And I did have a social studies class that dealt with marketing ploys and how not to be deceived by advertising).
I like your 5 points.
I think
2) should fall under normal freedom of speech and that people shold be kindly made awae of waht sland is before actually being punished in normal cases.
3) As Steve mentioned above: When is the fact checking done? Should things be allowed until proven false? Should I be able to writ speculatively? My experience is that, knowing what Kant wrote still, it was still extremely hard to write a fact checked wikipedia article about him. Finding a literal quote is tough! But, anyone that actually ever checked into his work would have confirmed me. I mean: this is a thing that might limit the spread of information. I am not sure how to do that right. Can we come up with ideas?
1, 4 and 5 are spot on in my opinion
~Immanuel Kant
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?
I think this is a good idea. Although it will always be vulnerable to accusations of partisan political bias.Marvin_Edwards wrote:5. School children should be taught Social Studies that covers examples of exaggeration, false information, propaganda, and rumors to prepare them to detect these manipulative practices when used by politicians and news media. Hopefully this will offer them some immunity to disinformation.
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?
Back in the old days, the news departments at ABC, CBS, and NBC policed each other. Any false news reporting was quickly seized upon and became a news story itself. Their competition with each other was based in part upon the quality of their product, which was information. Some newsmen resigned after reporting an unsubstantiated story.Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 20th, 2020, 4:59 amHow would you appoint a bi-partisan moderator group and what means would you use to assess their bi-partisanship? Would you make it a legal requirement for platforms like Twitter to appoint a group like this? If you did, at what point in the development of a social media platform would this legal requirement be triggered? If I start developing a social media platform today, do I first need to appoint this group?Marvin_Edwards wrote:A rating system based on fact-checking. Prior to posting, a bi-partisan moderator group would classify the content as "personal opinion", "false rumor", "fake news" and any other categories that would give the reader a heads-up that what they are reading is non-factual.
But, things have changed, haven't they.
No intelligent human being should be giving any credence to stories spread by individuals on social media.
And, when Trump or anyone else says, "Some people say that...", we should all presume that this flags a false rumor that they are deliberately spreading.
School systems should prepare our kids to identify rumors so that they are not the victims of false information.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023