from Hacker News

Justice Department to propose limiting internet firms’ Section 230 protections

by justindocanto on 6/17/20, 11:37 AM with 189 comments

  • by throwawaygh on 6/17/20, 2:03 PM

    I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that Section 230 protections should come with some sort of obligation to allow free speech.

    However, the actual policy proposals for replacing Section 230 are all outright dystopian. Josh Hawley, in particular, is NOT a free speech advocate. His problem with Facebook/Tiwtter is perceived liberal bias, and the alternatives to Section 230 that he suggests are 100% about wrestling editorial oversight away from one class (tech CEOs) and then giving it to another (a politically-appointed board).

    Does anyone have a good proposal for how to go about reforming Section 230 in a way that's workable and values free speech?

  • by bcrosby95 on 6/17/20, 2:38 PM

    Be careful of what you ask for.

    Section 230 exists because the courts punished Prodigy because they tried to moderate their forums but did it imperfectly, but didn't punish CompuServe because they let anything go. The idea is to allow imperfect moderation in addition to both zero and perfect moderation.

    The internet without section 230 isn't a bastion of internet freedom. It's 4chan and 8chan. It's a shithole.

  • by akersten on 6/17/20, 1:45 PM

    Can someone who supports "let's hold internet platforms responsible for what their users do on their platform" explain how that's any different than "let's hold gun manufacturers responsible for what users do with their guns?"

    I fail to see a difference between the two, and think both are untenable fantasies.

  • by save_ferris on 6/17/20, 12:03 PM

    In a nutshell, this would require congressional approval to pass. Both parties have expressed desire to alter the current legal protections that internet firms have, but it’s not clear if there will be a bipartisan consensus on what this change will look like if/when formal bills are introduced.

  • by joshuamorton on 6/17/20, 8:05 PM

    Perhaps the most important line from the article:

    > The Justice Department proposal is a legislative plan that would have to be adopted by Congress.

  • by nojito on 6/17/20, 12:28 PM

    >The Justice Department also will seek to make clear that tech platforms don’t have immunity in civil enforcement actions brought by the federal government, and can’t use immunity as a defense against antitrust claims that they removed content for anticompetitive reasons.

    Oh boy...the costs of running Google, Twitter, Facebook and others... will quintuple overnight when Congress passes this.

  • by BelleOfTheBall on 6/17/20, 12:15 PM

    Ah, seeking to mess with Section 230 again, just like with the EARN It Act. Any company that stays headquartered in the USA if this passes is just begging for trouble.

  • by merricksb on 6/17/20, 11:54 AM

  • by neonate on 6/17/20, 7:44 PM

  • by s_y_n_t_a_x on 6/17/20, 8:44 PM

  • by Nasrudith on 6/18/20, 9:39 PM

    I wonder if the colloquial understanding of platforms and ownership got bad for reasons even aside from the blatant propaganda of special interests.

    Back in even the 90s and 00s even the dim bulbs responding to other dim bulbs like Yahoo or AOL doing dumb stuff like shutting down child molestation victim support group channels from ham-handed attempts to try to moderate didn't lead to any idiots thinking that the government should somehow punish them even though it was rightfully called stupid and morally wrong. Was it because they actually understood the internet existed as many small sites as well as the big names?

  • by mudil on 6/17/20, 3:48 PM

    When social media firms ban conservative voices, they need to be sued for interference with interstate commerce. Because that's what it is.

  • by snuxoll on 6/17/20, 3:20 PM

    I don’t see this passing constitutional muster. You have a right to free speech as do corporations - you can be ejected from a privately owned building for saying things the owner doesn’t agree with, the same applies to online platforms.

    This is a open and shut first amendment case.

  • by scarface74 on 6/17/20, 12:21 PM

    And this is all because the President got mad at Twitter on the right and the left always think more government is the answer.

    This is what happens when you get government involvement in tech.

  • by ybav on 6/17/20, 2:59 PM

    Congratulations Twitter! You improved the Internet in the same way as the Internet Archive by pushing too far.

    Hope you are satisfied with all that awesome power.

  • by sdwedq on 6/17/20, 3:16 PM

    I agree. I used to believe in absolute freedom of speech on the web. But then people start sending goatsx or whatever as joke in emails. I learned to avoid opening any links form certain friends.

    MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter was nice clean space to hangout for a while. Then horrible and traumatic pictures and videos start showing up in my feed. I know the world is horrible place but I don't need constant reminder about it. I unfollowed as many people as I can.

    Now as a parent, I cannot constantly monitor these supposedly safe sites. I have seen disgusting or violent videos on YouTube for Kids, Amazon Videos aimed at kids, and even some kids shows on Netflix.

    These platform should be responsible for the content they host, no matter who uploaded. That would be one way to clean up flith.

    That's why I will pay for cable TV again and let someone moderate content for me.