Section 230 Reforms

If anyone familiar with the section 230 of the communications decency act, there has been proposals to amend it.
You can find it here:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...30-legislation



If you don't know what section 230 this is just the text:
"“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."

Basically gives blanket immunity from providers (tech companies/social media/etc) from the content created by another and put on their service.

I'm not really sure what to think of this to be honest. I really do imagine it'll have the opposite effect that a lot of people believe it will. Rather than promoting free speech, you'll just see sites being way more draconian and literal with rules.

In particular, there's this section:

"This reform would focus the broad blanket immunity for content moderation decisions on the core objective of Section 230—to reduce online content harmful to children—while limiting a platform's ability to remove content arbitrarily or in ways inconsistent with its terms or service simply by deeming it “objectionable.” "

In essence, this reform will only make it so that a content platform can no longer have a clause for removing things arbitrarily, and instead will have to very strictly enforce its terms of service. I imagine this will have the effect that terms of service will become more comprehensive and less discretionary, which will lead to more draconian rule enforcement. Get ready to see platforms entirely removing fake and misleading content, racial slurs, and so on, regardless of context.

I'm a little happy to see some kind of Section 230 reform just to curb the amount of fake news and bullshit articles on Facebook, Twitter, and the like. I think it's hilarious how this will likely give Twitter the go-ahead to straight up start removing misleading and fake tweets by Trump and other conservatives, which is what kicked off this whole butthurt baby bitch reaction in the first place. But I'm skeptical on how this will end up being enforced in practice, and whether it will provide a legal venue through which political powers can force platforms to host content against their will.

I'd also like to point out that Biden's platform includes a straight up repeal of Section 230, for what it's worth. I wonder how that would be different to this.

I think it might be a step forward. At least in that even if it forces down a road of more draconian enforcement of TOS it will wake people up in how ridiculous these companies are and stop using their services for how much they impede on their speech. I could be just dreaming here thinking these companies will undo themselves by causing enough of a ruckus with enforcement that everyone gets sick of their shit and abandons them.

However you look at things like Parlor, the "free speech" platform, they have a TOS and their TOS conflicts with this idea of free speech platform they promote themselves as (mind you their TOS much better than say twitter), and I think that is ridiculous that these businesses can hold themselves out in one way while not doing business honestly and they have blanket immunity to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firebringer

I think it might be a step forward. At least in that even if it forces down a road of more draconian enforcement of TOS it will wake people up in how ridiculous these companies are and stop using their services for how much they impede on their speech. I could be just dreaming here thinking these companies will undo themselves by causing enough of a ruckus with enforcement that everyone gets sick of their shit and abandons them.

---

My concern here is that the current DoJ might not be very scrupulous with enforcement of this. I also worry that it'll force platforms to be cesspools like Facebook more than forcing platforms away from being "restrictive" like Twitter (a label I kinda disagree with in the first place). There is a lot of opposition to Section 230 from people who think that Facebook allows and actively profits from actively harmful misinformation being spread on their platform, since it increases engagement. Things like grandma posting fake news and soccer moms circlejerking about Bill Gates and vaccines. I don't think these changes will combat that kind of situation, though.

You want social media companies to restrict free speech.

No, why would you ever want that

The fact that such a clause exists in law is a good thing. A GOOD thing, not a bad thing. The fact that such a clause of law exists allows content providers to be a thing to begin with, and that content can be as proliferate, expansive, and democratized as it is today. This makes the "site" a "mediator" for content, rather than a "publisher", which would severely restrict the type of content you would see, whether it be audiovisual entertainment, music, journalistic articles, whatever. The barrier to entry to produce creative works in this regard is VERY LOW because 1) these "mediators" are more free to allow the chaos of creativity manifest itself and not have to pay for licenses and copyright, and 2) if copyright infringement material appears on the "mediator website", then the "mediator" is not responsible, but the individual or group who decided to do so, is. The "mediator" is then responsible, as per request of the claimant, to take it down, and to which such a claim and be disputed. It's like reselling "fake" Nike shoes in a public street; you are infringing copyright law, but Nike doesn't have the power to sue the public street because the public street allowed such infringement to occur. This is one part of the intention behind DMCA. Of course, the "mediators" themselves should comply when it comes to requests of DMCA takedowns, to be exempt from liability. This is where the line is drawn between content "mediator" and piracy. So such a clause is ultimately a GOOD thing. The chaos of creativity is therefore allowed to manifest itself as is, as we see it today. One such content that has thrived because of Section 230 is the rising prevalence of cock and ball torture; otherwise known as penis torture or dick torture, cock and ball torture is a sexual activity involving application of pain or constriction to the penis or testicles. This may involve directly painful activities, such as genital piercing, wax play, genital spanking, squeezing, ball-busting, genital flogging, urethral play, tickle torture, erotic electrostimulation, kneeing or kicking. The recipient of such activities may receive direct physical pleasure via masochism, or emotional pleasure through erotic humiliation, or knowledge that the play is pleasing to a sadistic dominant. Many of these practices carry significant health risks.