CDA Section 230 Under Fire from Trump and Biden

[The V O I D]

Trump Source: from the Mouth of the President himself.

Edit: Source on Biden.

“What's Section 230?”

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is thus: “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.”

Or, in layman's terms: social media companies that allow themselves to be used as platforms cannot be sued as a result of anything anyone says on their platforms due to the fact that they are not able to be held responsible.

“Why do we care?”

If repealed, Trump and co. have posted lots of potentially lawsuit worthy material. Twitter and co. would have to ban/delete all of it. Then they'd have to ban/delete any material after that that could be considered objectionable or liable to get them sued.

The Internet's social media platforms would literally self-destruct, especially if they are US-based or predominantly populated by US-based accounts etc.

All Americans would effectively disappear from the web as American-based servers for social media sites would be shut down and social media companies would move overseas to avoid lawsuits/stop offering services here. The only thing out of America on the internet would be news sites.

Even sites like, say, NationStates' ability to operate in the US could be threatened as a result of someone trying to sue them or their users as they aren't protected from responsibility via US law (though I'm not 100% on this, I could be wrong - someone with more expertise on internet law and how international things like this are handled should correct me and I'll add it to the OP).

---

TL;DR Trump and the GOP want to kill internet free speech in a fit of irony, whilst proclaiming they are “protecting” free speech in doing so.

Edit: Apparently, Biden also wants to remove S230 for some reason.

What say ye, NSG?

Personally, I hope Trump and the GOP fail at this and we get to vote them out. I'd rather not lose access to my social media, but that's just me.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

I think that repealing Section 230 would be devastating for the US tech industry, one of the few industries where the US has a strong leadership position. It would also have the effect of reducing the amount of free speech on the Internet. Lawmakers should tread carefully here.

Some people are worried that the flexibility large platforms have in moderation is a threat to free speech. I think a good compromise would be to require large websites (this could be determined through how many active users the site has) to follow the Santa Clara principles.

1) Companies should publish the numbers of posts removed and accounts permanently or temporarily suspended due to violations of their content guidelines.

2) Companies should provide notice to each user whose content is taken down or account is suspended about the reason for the removal or suspension.

3) Companies should provide a meaningful opportunity for timely appeal of any content removal or account suspension.

This would essentially require tech companies to be more transparent about how they moderate their platforms, and would require them to provide a reasonable appeal/resolution process.

[Major-Tom]

The Right is a stalwart defender of free speech, unless some Juul addicted 16-year old bisexual makes them cry on Twitter and call out their "facts and logic."

What a joke, what a joke.

[Phaenix]

Well, I sincerely hope our government has the people's best interests at heart and prevent this, but I highly doubt it.

[The V O I D]

I think that repealing Section 230 would be devastating for the US tech industry, one of the few industries where the US has a strong leadership position. It would also have the effect of reducing the amount of free speech on the Internet. Lawmakers should tread carefully here.

Some people are worried that the flexibility large platforms have in moderation is a threat to free speech. I think a good compromise would be to require large websites (this could be determined through how many active users the site has) to follow the Santa Clara principles.

1) Companies should publish the numbers of posts removed and accounts permanently or temporarily suspended due to violations of their content guidelines.

2) Companies should provide notice to each user whose content is taken down or account is suspended about the reason for the removal or suspension.

3) Companies should provide a meaningful opportunity for timely appeal of any content removal or account suspension.

This would essentially require tech companies to be more transparent about how they moderate their platforms, and requires them to provide a reasonable appeal/resolution process.

I feel like most social media companies already do that to some degree. At least, all the ones I'm involved with do.

The Right is a stalwart defender of free speech, unless some Juul addicted 16-year old bisexual makes them cry on Twitter and call out their "facts and logic."

What a joke, what a joke.

This made me snort on my drink.

Well, I sincerely hope our government has the people's best interests at heart and prevent this, but I highly doubt it.

Same tbh.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Not just Trump.

[Major-Tom]

Not just Trump.

Credit where credit is due, I did not know Biden was on board with this as well. Not a good look, not good at all.

Why is it that every politician who has ever campaigned on a platform claiming to be the most virtuous always ends up cracking down on internet freedom?

[Kowani]

Not just Trump.

"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies."

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Not just Trump.

Credit where credit is due, I did not know Biden was on board with this as well. Not a good look, not good at all.

Why is it that every politician who has ever campaigned on a platform claiming to be the most virtuous always ends up cracking down on internet freedom?

Because it serves them to control it. If they can control the narrative online, if they can prevent free expression inasmuch as it eliminates unflattering or negative speech against them, they’ll strike gold.

Of course, controlling free speech online is virtually impossible and I’m glad that’s the case.

[The V O I D]

Not just Trump.

Ah, fuck. Didn't realize that was the case. Mind if I nab that link? Think I'll edit the OP do be more of a discussion on S230 itself, I guess.

[Major-Tom]

Credit where credit is due, I did not know Biden was on board with this as well. Not a good look, not good at all.

Why is it that every politician who has ever campaigned on a platform claiming to be the most virtuous always ends up cracking down on internet freedom?

Because it serves them to control it. If they can control the narrative online, if they can prevent free expression inasmuch as it eliminates unflattering or negative speech against them, they’ll strike gold.

Of course, controlling free speech online is virtually impossible and I’m glad that’s the case.

It was more of a rhetorical question, but yes.

I think social media has been incredibly damaging in terms of our discourse, in terms of how it has pitted people into camps that are no longer ideological but about identity. If someone were to form an argument that 230 oughta be repealed for that reason, I'd listen, but even then, the precedent this sets is fairly dangerous.

I may not like what happens on social media, but I don't care to limit it, much as it pains me to say so.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

Not just Trump.

Wow, did not know that. Both of them are wrong on this count.

Another thing that cracks me up about American politicians is their strong desire to ensure law enforcement/intelligence access to communications and data. They advocate for that in various ways, then they freak out when Huawei allegedly permits the Chinese government to access telecom networks through their equipment. They have close to zero self-awareness.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Because it serves them to control it. If they can control the narrative online, if they can prevent free expression inasmuch as it eliminates unflattering or negative speech against them, they’ll strike gold.

Of course, controlling free speech online is virtually impossible and I’m glad that’s the case.

It was more of a rhetorical question, but yes.

I think social media has been incredibly damaging in terms of our discourse, in terms of how it has pitted people into camps that are no longer ideological but about identity. If someone were to form an argument that 230 oughta be repealed for that reason, I'd listen, but even then, the precedent this sets is fairly dangerous.

I may not like what happens on social media, but I don't care to limit it, much as it pains me to say so.

Even horrid speech deserves to be protected, as much as we may not like it. Yes.

[The V O I D]

Not just Trump.

Wow, did not know that. Both of them are wrong on this count.

Another thing that cracks me up about American politicians is their strong desire to ensure law enforcement/intelligence access to communications and data. They advocate for that in various ways, then they freak out when Huawei allegedly permits the Chinese government to access telecom networks through their equipment. They have close to zero self-awareness.

“HEY! If anyone's gonna spy on and manipulate our people, it's gonna be US!”

[Major-Tom]

Not just Trump.

Wow, did not know that. Both of them are wrong on this count.

Another thing that cracks me up about American politicians is their strong desire to ensure law enforcement/intelligence access to communications and data. They advocate for that in various ways, then they freak out when Huawei allegedly permits the Chinese government to access telecom networks through their equipment. They have close to zero self-awareness.

It's because they're old, honest.

I mean, you guys all oughta remember the Facebook hearings in Congress, where people on both sides of the aisle asked asinine questions about Facebook that bordered on senility to the tune of Clint Eastwood speaking to a chair. Zuckerberg deserved to have his ass handed to him, not asked questions about "How do followers work?"

[Kathol Rift]

Why do we have this dumpster fire of a presidential race? Both candidates are trying to do the same damned thing. We really need to get a better party in here somewhere.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Not just Trump.

Ah, fuck. Didn't realize that was the case. Mind if I nab that link? Think I'll edit the OP do be more of a discussion on S230 itself, I guess.

Go ahead.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Why do we have this dumpster fire of a presidential race? Both candidates are trying to do the same damned thing. We really need to get a better party in here somewhere.

The choices blow on both sides. I’m not happy myself on this but I do know that I need to vote because I don’t like what I’m seeing and what we’ve lived for the past four years.

[Kowani]

Wow, did not know that. Both of them are wrong on this count.

Another thing that cracks me up about American politicians is their strong desire to ensure law enforcement/intelligence access to communications and data. They advocate for that in various ways, then they freak out when Huawei allegedly permits the Chinese government to access telecom networks through their equipment. They have close to zero self-awareness.

It's because they're old, honest.

I mean, you guys all oughta remember the Facebook hearings in Congress, where people on both sides of the aisle asked asinine questions about Facebook that bordered on senility to the tune of Clint Eastwood speaking to a chair. Zuckerberg deserved to have his ass handed to him, not asked questions about "How do followers work?"

...Who asked that and why are they still in office-

[The Reformed American Republic]

Not just Trump.

"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies."

I do agree with that statement, though both candidates reasoning is different. Biden wants to force a more stringent moderation policy, while Trump wants to do the opposite.

[West Bromwich Holme]

This is one instance where his administration doesn't understand the consequences - if you thought Europe and Article 17 was bad, this is even worse.

Wouldn't repealing Section 230 affect commercial sites like autotrader.com - how would this affect used car buying/selling online, and TripAdvisor?

I miss the old days of the Internet (not in a technological sense) of 2003-2008, when it wasn't as politicized and was more content-driven, and allowed to be itself, for the most part. You didn't have SJWs etc.

[Major-Tom]

It's because they're old, honest.

I mean, you guys all oughta remember the Facebook hearings in Congress, where people on both sides of the aisle asked asinine questions about Facebook that bordered on senility to the tune of Clint Eastwood speaking to a chair. Zuckerberg deserved to have his ass handed to him, not asked questions about "How do followers work?"

...Who asked that and why are they still in office-

Grassley, I believe? I'd have to double check, it's been 2 years.

[Major-Tom]

Why do we have this dumpster fire of a presidential race? Both candidates are trying to do the same damned thing. We really need to get a better party in here somewhere.

If I weren't already working the Biden train, I'd proudly write-in Bull Moose.

[Kowani]

"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies."

I do agree with that statement, though both candidates reasoning is different. Biden wants to force a more stringent moderation policy, while Trump wants to do the opposite.

So we're fucked no matter what, wonderful.

...Who asked that and why are they still in office-

Grassley, I believe? I'd have to double check, it's been 2 years.

And I thought he was one of the not flaming garbage ones.

[Cordel One]

Why do we have this dumpster fire of a presidential race? Both candidates are trying to do the same damned thing. We really need to get a better party in here somewhere.

If I weren't already working the Biden train, I'd proudly write-in Bull Moose.

Do it. Reject bourgeois electoralism.