Search:

[QUOTE=Firebringer;891476]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

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'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.