CDA 230 - possibly the end of NS?

[Tekania]

Broadly speaking, I'll be in favor of whatever will more enable me to post however I want to within reason. One side wants to enable or coerce websites to do more self censorship/moderation whilst another side wants the end users protected from more if not most censorship from websites. Mainly far rightists complaining how the level of hatred/bigotry/etc. that is allowed to be expressed isn't quite enough.

Which I find quite hilarious, given that I've been subject to massive blocking and sensors on right wing forums for decades merely based upon my opinion. But when Twitter does it suddenly they want to burn it all down. But alas, you're dealing with a class of people that calls others snowflakes for advocating social justice concerns while they'll go on massive tirades if someone at Walmart wishes them a Happy Holidays instead of saying Merry Christmas. People who will go on and on about businesses being allowed to refuse service and then throw tantrums when a business refuses them.

You can't expect too much from something that has demonstrated a complete lack of any real self-awareness.

[The New California Republic]

Reading through it, this seems very unlikely to impact NS in many tangible ways.

Yes this. I doubt there will be any real differences arising from it.

[Purpelia]

Broadly speaking, I'll be in favor of whatever will more enable me to post however I want to within reason. One side wants to enable or coerce websites to do more self censorship/moderation whilst another side wants the end users protected from more if not most censorship from websites. Mainly far rightists complaining how the level of hatred/bigotry/etc. that is allowed to be expressed isn't quite enough.

Which I find quite hilarious, given that I've been subject to massive blocking and sensors on right wing forums for decades merely based upon my opinion. But when Twitter does it suddenly they want to burn it all down. But alas, you're dealing with a class of people that calls others snowflakes for advocating social justice concerns while they'll go on massive tirades if someone at Walmart wishes them a Happy Holidays instead of saying Merry Christmas. People who will go on and on about businesses being allowed to refuse service and then throw tantrums when a business refuses them.

You can't expect too much from something that has demonstrated a complete lack of any real self-awareness.

So you don't like being censored, have been censored in the past and now that the people who you blame for doing so have decided it is not a good idea to censor people and want to stop it you are against them doing it because you disagree with their politics? I am confused.

[Glorious Hong Kong]

Me thinks the OP can't read. Because reading the link you provided I get the exact opposite of what the OP says. Seriously, point by point:

Incentivizing Online Platforms to Address Illicit Content

The first category of recommendations is aimed at incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online, while preserving the core of Section 230’s immunity for defamation claims. These reforms include a carve-out for bad actors who purposefully facilitate or solicit content that violates federal criminal law or are willfully blind to criminal content on their own services. Additionally, the department recommends a case-specific carve out where a platform has actual knowledge that content violated federal criminal law and does not act on it within a reasonable time, or where a platform was provided with a court judgment that the content is unlawful, and does not take appropriate action.

This paragraph basically says:
1. If a platform is told by a court to take something down and they don't they get punished.
2. If a platform knowingly and deliberately allows content that is illegal to be on it they get punished.

Now, that is not great as I'd rather not have any censorship of the internet but it's hardly anything that we don't have already.

Promoting Open Discourse and Greater Transparency

A second category of proposed reforms is intended to clarify the text and revive the original purpose of the statute in order to promote free and open discourse online and encourage greater transparency between platforms and users. One of these recommended reforms is to provide a statutory definition of “good faith” to clarify its original purpose. The new statutory definition would limit immunity for content moderation decisions to those done in accordance with plain and particular terms of service and consistent with public representations. These measures would encourage platforms to be more transparent and accountable to their users.

A platform has to have explicit and plainly understandable terms of service and not some sort of lawyerspeak byzantine vague ones like Youtube has now. Great, this is a great thing and should be applauded.

Clarifying Federal Government Enforcement Capabilities

The third category of recommendations would increase the ability of the government to protect citizens from unlawful conduct, by making it clear that Section 230 does not apply to civil enforcement actions brought by the federal government.

If a platform breaks some law and the government acts to protect you from that they should be able to do so. Again, how is that a bad thing?

Promoting Competition

A fourth category of reform is to make clear that federal antitrust claims are not, and were never intended to be, covered by Section 230 immunity. Over time, the avenues for engaging in both online commerce and speech have concentrated in the hands of a few key players. It makes little sense to enable large online platforms (particularly dominant ones) to invoke Section 230 immunity in antitrust cases, where liability is based on harm to competition, not on third-party speech.

THIS IS FANTASTIC. THIS IS HUGE AND GREAT AND I LOVE IT. It literally says Google and it's ilk can't claim protection from being broken up because they are a monopoly.


So overall I do not see anything the OP says and frankly think this is a great bill overall.
As for the news article I won't even read that as it's obvious how this bill is a massive and serious threat to Google and the other tech giants who abuse the current state of affairs to become and maintain a monopoly over the internet. And thus they will sponsor news articles to fight it.

Kudos for the breakdown. As an avid internet user who loves to air my views online, I support this.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

So wait, it would ban NS from moderating itself but then would hold it liable if some guy posts ISIS execution videos here?

What the fuck kind of logic is that?

[Esternial]

Sounds like fearmongering to me.

[Heloin]

I'll choose the current internet over every website being fucking 8chan.

I'd choose every website being 8Chan.

I have a question: would you rather have every website be 8Chan or would you rather have the slow death of Net Neutrality be worsened by censorship?

This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

[Thermodolia]

Reading through it, this seems very unlikely to impact NS in many tangible ways.

Yes this. I doubt there will be any real differences arising from it.

Especially considering that politically neutral sites are exempt. Which NS would fall under since they ban both right and left wing people and don’t promote any political ideology

[Estado Novo Portugues]

So wait, it would ban NS from moderating itself but then would hold it liable if some guy posts ISIS execution videos here?

What the fuck kind of logic is that?

NS can still moderate content, but moderation can't be politically motivated (which it already isn't). ISIS propaganda would probably violate PG-13 here, so a non-political reason to delete them.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

So wait, it would ban NS from moderating itself but then would hold it liable if some guy posts ISIS execution videos here?

What the fuck kind of logic is that?

NS can still moderate content, but moderation can't be politically motivated (which it already isn't). ISIS propaganda would probably violate PG-13 here, so a non-political reason to delete them.

So what if a guy says "death to the west, long live ISIS"? Like they can't be banned but the government can hold NS accountable for the guy they were prohibited from banning?

Is everyone in the Trump administration these days a dipshit?

[The Unified Missourtama States]

The absolute stupidity in this thread. Read the terms and services of this site.

Any claim relating to this web site shall be governed by the laws of the State of Victoria, Australia without regard to its conflict of law provisions.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The absolute stupidity in this thread. Read the terms and services of this site.

Any claim relating to this web site shall be governed by the laws of the State of Victoria, Australia without regard to its conflict of law provisions.

Damn

[Estado Novo Portugues]

So what if a guy says "death to the west, long live ISIS"? Like they can't be banned but the government can hold NS accountable for the guy they were prohibited from banning?

Advocating death is against the rules too. But if he said something like "F--- the West!", he'd probably be OK though.

[The New California Republic]

The absolute stupidity in this thread. Read the terms and services of this site.

Any claim relating to this web site shall be governed by the laws of the State of Victoria, Australia without regard to its conflict of law provisions.

Yes we are aware and it has been repeatedly pointed out.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

The absolute stupidity in this thread. Read the terms and services of this site.

Any claim relating to this web site shall be governed by the laws of the State of Victoria, Australia without regard to its conflict of law provisions.

Yes we are aware and it has been repeatedly pointed out.

But it didn't really, that conversation should've ended at NS would have to ban US access or get banned by the US. Instead y'all kept talking. This should be a thread about CDA 230 according to what I read in the OP, this is instead becoming something else.

[Page]

Yes we are aware and it has been repeatedly pointed out.

But it didn't really, that conversation should've ended at NS would have to ban US access or get banned by the US. Instead y'all kept talking. This should be a thread about CDA 230 according to what I read in the OP, this is instead becoming something else.

I am not a lawyer but I don't even see why a site hosted outside the US would even have to ban US access because of this, how can American law touch it?

[The Unified Missourtama States]

But it didn't really, that conversation should've ended at NS would have to ban US access or get banned by the US. Instead y'all kept talking. This should be a thread about CDA 230 according to what I read in the OP, this is instead becoming something else.

I am not a lawyer but I don't even see why a site hosted outside the US would even have to ban US access because of this, how can American law touch it?

Not saying NS would have to, more of a courtesy thing, obviously, the US gov can't block every self-moderating site, NS blocking US IPs would I actually think be kind (in a way) as to prevent people from accidentally wandering onto illegal websites. And of course NS does comply with many foreign laws out of not wanting to be blocked and just courtesy.

[Nilrahrarfan]

The absolute stupidity in this thread. Read the terms and services of this site.

Any claim relating to this web site shall be governed by the laws of the State of Victoria, Australia without regard to its conflict of law provisions.

That's what I mean by "all it will block is the Americans, and not for long."

[Punished UMN]

It will be struck down by the courts so it doesn't really matter.

[Greatdux]

So basically a return to Jolt era NS where the mods only intervened to ban outright illegal stuff?

Also you'll have to imagine who would try to sue NS for getting banned who would have the financial resources to actually sue properly.

NS2 - Truly a fate worse than death.

I also have a contingency plan. As in, MOVE TO POLITICS & WAR.

Welp, I’m a Szekler Hungarian in Romania currently vacationing near *********.

I tried it. Personally not for me! I would go on about how I have my eyes assaulted by every single faction advertisement, but this is not the place for me. ^^;

Welp, true, especially considering that I already deleted the post.

[Saiwania]

You can't expect too much from something that has demonstrated a complete lack of any real self-awareness.

Isn't it most within human nature to want "rules for thee but not for me?"

[Page]

I am not a lawyer but I don't even see why a site hosted outside the US would even have to ban US access because of this, how can American law touch it?

Not saying NS would have to, more of a courtesy thing, obviously, the US gov can't block every self-moderating site, NS blocking US IPs would I actually think be kind (in a way) as to prevent people from accidentally wandering onto illegal websites. And of course NS does comply with many foreign laws out of not wanting to be blocked and just courtesy.

If you don't comply with North Korean law why comply with American law?

[Bienenhalde]

...NS would not survive this.

It wasn't supposed to survive the Net Neutrality repeal, either... or the EU Copyright Directive... or maybe the EU Link Tax and SOPA/PIPA too before they got struck down, I can't quite remember because I wasn't here at the time. Why do these doomsday predictions always seem to crop up every two years?

This happens because corrupt Big Tech companies keep putting out scaremonging lies and propaganda whenever governments implements regulations to protect the public which would cut into their profits. Revisions of CDA 230 are aimed at Big Tech and at websites that facilitate criminal activity. I doubt it would effect NS.

[Tekania]

Which I find quite hilarious, given that I've been subject to massive blocking and sensors on right wing forums for decades merely based upon my opinion. But when Twitter does it suddenly they want to burn it all down. But alas, you're dealing with a class of people that calls others snowflakes for advocating social justice concerns while they'll go on massive tirades if someone at Walmart wishes them a Happy Holidays instead of saying Merry Christmas. People who will go on and on about businesses being allowed to refuse service and then throw tantrums when a business refuses them.

You can't expect too much from something that has demonstrated a complete lack of any real self-awareness.

So you don't like being censored, have been censored in the past and now that the people who you blame for doing so have decided it is not a good idea to censor people and want to stop it you are against them doing it because you disagree with their politics? I am confused.

Who said I don't like being censored? I wear it like a badge on honor when some groups censor and block me. There are multiple forums around the internet to express myself in. I've got ones I myself run as well. These changes are completely un-needed. Merely snowflakes demanding access to any any every forum they want.

[Torisakia]

Delicious. Finally some good fucking legislation.