The Justice Department has asked Congress to pass legislation holding online platforms such as Facebook and Twitter more accountable for what their users post, in the Trump administration's latest salvo against social media companies.
The proposed changes would reshape Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which has long protected websites from lawsuits over the content users post, and the decisions the companies make about moderating or removing content.
"For too long Section 230 has provided a shield for online platforms to operate with impunity," said Attorney General William P. Barr in a statement. "Ensuring that the internet is a safe, but also vibrant, open and competitive environment is vitally important to America. We therefore urge Congress to make these necessary reforms to Section 230 and begin to hold online platforms accountable both when they unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online."
Trump Warns Social Media As Justice Department Aims To Weaken Tech's Legal Shield
The Justice Department's proposal would hold Facebook and Twitter more accountable for users' posts. One critic says the Trump administration is "trying to work the refs ahead of the election."www.npr.org
Looks like Trump is getting upset that private companies were able to set rules and limits for what they allow to be posted on their apps. I don't think this is a good move, it's clearly just reactionary nonsense and Trump's desire to bring the hammer of government against the free exercise of rights.
Nope.Should such platforms pick and choose what they allow to onto their sites, then they become liable for what they choose to permit onto it.
Trump Warns Social Media As Justice Department Aims To Weaken Tech's Legal Shield
The Justice Department's proposal would hold Facebook and Twitter more accountable for users' posts. One critic says the Trump administration is "trying to work the refs ahead of the election."www.npr.org
Looks like Trump is getting upset that private companies were able to set rules and limits for what they allow to be posted on their apps. I don't think this is a good move, it's clearly just reactionary nonsense and Trump's desire to bring the hammer of government against the free exercise of rights.
Which right to "knowingly facilitate criminal activity" are you talking about in particular?Looks like Trump is getting upset that private companies were able to set rules and limits for what they allow to be posted on their apps. I don't think this is a good move, it's clearly just reactionary nonsense and Trump's desire to bring the hammer of government against the free exercise of rights.
Nope.
They can police the postings on their sites and they may ban or censor as they see fit. It's private.
Social Media can indeed censor and restrict what is being placed on their own equipment. They are not responsible for criminal activities of others, though if it's found that someone posted something that advocates criminal activity, it should be taken down and the authorities alerted. It's likely not easy for the large tech sites to fully monitor everything, however, and thus they shouldn't be liable for it.Which right to "knowingly facilitate criminal activity" are you talking about in particular?
It's private, they can police what is being put there. People post their own material, so they are the publishers, but places like Debate Politics, Twitter, Facebook, etc. has the right to censor material on their site to their liking. They aren't liable for what random people post on their forums, but they do have the right to police the content.That would be false. They are presently exempt from libel liability and the like from the 1996 law because the law recognizes that they operate a forum; anyone can say anything they wish on these public sites.
But if they are going to be in business of picking and choosing what they allow to be posted, they are becoming publishers and editors, and then yes, just like print media they should be held liable for their decisions and actions. That is what the DOJ is looking at.
The devil is in the details (i.e. how exactly the law is written) - but I think the keyword there is "knowingly". I suppose the law might cover a situation where something is reported and they have time to do something about it, but don't. It might also force companies to implement better protections against online predators, etc.Social Media can indeed censor and restrict what is being placed on their own equipment. They are not responsible for criminal activities of others, though if it's found that someone posted something that advocates criminal activity, it should be taken down and the authorities alerted. It's likely not easy for the large tech sites to fully monitor everything, however, and thus they shouldn't be liable for it.
It's private, they can police what is being put there. People post their own material, so they are the publishers, but places like Debate Politics, Twitter, Facebook, etc. has the right to censor material on their site to their liking. They aren't liable for what random people post on their forums, but they do have the right to police the content.
That would be false. They are presently exempt from libel liability and the like from the 1996 law because the law recognizes that they operate a forum; anyone can say anything they wish on these public sites.
But if they are going to be in business of picking and choosing what they allow to be posted, they are becoming publishers and editors, and then yes, just like print media they should be held liable for their decisions and actions. That is what the DOJ is looking at.
If they want to act as more than a conduit they don't deserve conduit protection. Simple as that.Trump Warns Social Media As Justice Department Aims To Weaken Tech's Legal Shield
The Justice Department's proposal would hold Facebook and Twitter more accountable for users' posts. One critic says the Trump administration is "trying to work the refs ahead of the election."www.npr.org
Looks like Trump is getting upset that private companies were able to set rules and limits for what they allow to be posted on their apps. I don't think this is a good move, it's clearly just reactionary nonsense and Trump's desire to bring the hammer of government against the free exercise of rights.
Private property. I thought "conservatives" and such believed in that. Perhaps not...too many socialists in the mix it seems.If they want to act as more than a conduit they don't deserve conduit protection. Simple as that.
Trump Warns Social Media As Justice Department Aims To Weaken Tech's Legal Shield
The Justice Department's proposal would hold Facebook and Twitter more accountable for users' posts. One critic says the Trump administration is "trying to work the refs ahead of the election."www.npr.org
Looks like Trump is getting upset that private companies were able to set rules and limits for what they allow to be posted on their apps. I don't think this is a good move, it's clearly just reactionary nonsense and Trump's desire to bring the hammer of government against the free exercise of rights.
Nope.
They can police the postings on their sites and they may ban or censor as they see fit. It's private.
Private property. I thought "conservatives" and such believed in that. Perhaps not...too many socialists in the mix it seems.
Another misrepresentation of the issues?
Social media platforms have Section 230 protections against being held liable for things presented on their platforms. This because they claim to be non-biased "platforms" of member's free expression.
But when they use such protections to "editorialize," "de-rank," or "ban" certain viewpoints via unclear TOS that would otherwise be considered valid free speech? In order to push narratives the site owners support/agree with?
Then it is no longer a simple "platform," it becomes a partisan media purveyor, and thus should be held liable for the mis-, and dis-information they allow to be published.
Just like and other media...subject to civil suit and other liability for their "work product."
Got nothing to do with "private property". If it WERE private property the various sites would be responsible for all content, they don't want that; they don't want possible liability for every post made on their sites and the FCC code protects them as long as they don't alter, edit, or screen posts (with exceptions for porn, threats, etc.)Private property. I thought "conservatives" and such believed in that. Perhaps not...too many socialists in the mix it seems.
Got nothing to do with "private property". If it WERE private property the various sites would be responsible for all content, they don't want that; they don't want possible liability for every post made on their sites and the FCC code protects them as long as they don't alter, edit, or screen posts (with exceptions for porn, threats, etc.)
Great, exactly what we do not need... more government intervention into what people say and how they say it.
Hmmm, I recall something in the Bill of Rights about this.
Online platforms want government protection. Perhaps they should surrender those protections and get the government out of the equation, all together? We all know that won't happen...lol
Sorry, most evident to date including appearance in front of various Congressional hearing suggest otherwise. For the most part the general consensus is for the government to stay out of social media and that means your post... predictably... is nonsense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?