From Benzinga, February 20:
No More Immunity? Justice Department Wants Tech Companies To Have Legal Responsibility For Content Posted On Their Platforms
The United States Department of Justice held a workshop discussing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act on Wednesday that grants technology companies immunity from legal actions arising from content published by third-parties on their platform.
The Takeaways
Attorney General William Barr, who was delivering opening remarks at the "Section 230: Nurturing Innovation or Fostering Unaccountability?" said that the situation has long changed since the law was instituted in 1996, and the internet isn't in a nascent stage any longer.
"At that time, almost 25 years ago, immunity was seen as vital to protecting new technology in its incipiency," Barr said in his speech. "Today, online platforms have become essential to Americans' daily lives, often serving as the primary conduit for how we receive and share information."
"No longer are tech companies the underdog upstarts; they have become titans of US industry," Barr added on why questions are being raised on Section 230 continuing in its current form.....MORE
The matter has come under intense scrutiny over the role of social media companies, especially larger ones like Facebook Inc. FB -2.05%, Twitter Inc TWTR -1.9%, and Alphabet Inc. GOOGL -2.21% GOOG -2.18% in combating illicit content, including false political advertisements, hate speech, sexual harassment, and child sexual content.
Bipartisan lawmakers have called for amendments to the law in a way that would expose the internet-based communications companies to more legal action related to the content on their platform.
A lot of these actions are taken keeping in mind the larger or the more rogue smaller websites, but not medium-sized companies like Reddit, Craigslist, or Wikipedia, which don't have the finances of the larger companies but have a dedicated user base....
Previously:
January 27
It's Time For Big Tech To Decide If They Are Platforms or Publishers (FB; GOOG; TWTR; AMZN)
Okay, maybe allowing big tech to make the call is too weak-willed. Maybe they should be told they are one or the other.
Also at ProMarket:
January 23
“We Were Naïve,” Says FCC Chair Who Oversaw the Creation of Section 230
January 2020
The Various Tribes Have Chosen The Platform They Will Defend (FB; TWTR; GOOG; AMZN)
Seriously good stuff.
And although the trend toward politics-as-spectator-sport that has intensified over the last 5 - 10 years is probably not good for democracy it does provide a handy framework for folks to confirm their priors and hang their prejudices on.
One example that I've observed after reading the piece above is how people, whether left or right, will tend to attack the platform they perceive as most effective for the other 'side'.
And come up with all manner of argument and justification for their chosen position.
June 2019
"GOP senator introduces a bill that would blow up business models for Facebook, YouTube and other tech giants" (FB; GOOG; TWTR)
If you are going to act like a publisher with editorial discretion you should be treated like a publisher.
Contra this approach, there are learned scholars who say even re-writing section 230 is not enough, that a new law explicitly delineating the difference between platforms and publishers will have to be written.
*****
The fact there is bi-partisan support is one of the reasons we posted ""Not
all FAANGS will survive this battle': A Wall Street firm handicapped
the impact of Big Tech regulation — and it's bad news for Facebook" (FB)",
the Democrats were not pleased with the FB/Cambridge Analytica
revelations while the Republicans bristle at deplatforming and are
strategizing on some Masterpiece Cakeshop jiu-jitsu, perhaps amending the '64 Civil Rights Act to include political orientation à la the Washington D.C municipal code.
