Joe Biden: Republicans and Democrats, Unite Against Big Tech Abuses - Slashdot
source link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/23/01/11/1824203/joe-biden-republicans-and-democrats-unite-against-big-tech-abuses
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Joe Biden: Republicans and Democrats, Unite Against Big Tech Abuses
Joe Biden: Republicans and Democrats, Unite Against Big Tech Abuses (wsj.com) 124
Posted by msmash
on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @01:25PM from the and-now-a-word-from-the-president dept.Congress can find common ground on the protection of privacy, competition and American children, says U.S. President Joe Biden. In an op-ed at Wall Street Journal, he shares why he has pushed for legislation to hold Big Tech accountable. From the start of his administration, says Biden, he has embraced three broad principles for reform: First, we need serious federal protections for Americans' privacy. That means clear limits on how companies can collect, use and share highly personal data -- your internet history, your personal communications, your location, and your health, genetic and biometric data. It's not enough for companies to disclose what data they're collecting. Much of that data shouldn't be collected in the first place. These protections should be even stronger for young people, who are especially vulnerable online. We should limit targeted advertising and ban it altogether for children.
Second, we need Big Tech companies to take responsibility for the content they spread and the algorithms they use. That's why I've long said we must fundamentally reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects tech companies from legal responsibility for content posted on their sites. We also need far more transparency about the algorithms Big Tech is using to stop them from discriminating, keeping opportunities away from equally qualified women and minorities, or pushing content to children that threatens their mental health and safety.
Third, we need to bring more competition back to the tech sector. My administration has made strong progress in promoting competition throughout the economy, consistent with my July 2021 executive order. But there is more we can do. When tech platforms get big enough, many find ways to promote their own products while excluding or disadvantaging competitors -- or charge competitors a fortune to sell on their platform. My vision for our economy is one in which everyone -- small and midsized businesses, mom-and-pop shops, entrepreneurs -- can compete on a level playing field with the biggest companies. To realize that vision, and to make sure American tech keeps leading the world in cutting-edge innovation, we need fairer rules of the road. The next generation of great American companies shouldn't be smothered by the dominant incumbents before they have a chance to get off the ground.
›
-
The Communications Decency Act was created by Republicans in 1996. The original purpose of The Communications Decency Act was to allow increased censorship of radio and television by allowing the FCC to levy larger fines for broadcasting "indecent" content.
The now infamous Section 230 was added as an afterthought. Nobody noticed it at the time because there was no such thing as "social media". Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter didn't even exist. (Mark Zuckerberg was 10 years old when this law w-
by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @02:07PM (#63199980) Journal
230 was not an afterthought it was very specifically added to address issues exposed in some major lawsuits with Compuserv and Prodigy.
The same issues that surround the current generation platforms. What happened is the rest of the law got struck down by the courts and 230 basically survied standing alone because the law contained a separation clause. Which was probably a bad design... but the result was "tech" got its special protections the government got exactly none of the regulatory and enforcement power it sought.
230 wasn't an accident nor does it operate legally as the Congress that voted for it intended. It should be repealed or amended.
-
An afterthought isn't one of them. Section 230 of the CDA is brilliantly designed to protect your rights to speak your mind on the internet. Without it only the largest websites will be able to continue to function. You'll fine companies like Facebook are happy to see section 230 die while decentralized technical projects like Mastodon are terrified of the thought.
Make no mistake the internet lives and dies by section 230 and it absolutely operates legally. Congress has every right to regulate something-
DarkOx already said that the government can put their thumb on "Google, MS, Twitter, Facebook and control the entire town square." If someone thinks that private companies are town squares the philosophical argument must start there.
Personally, my public square doesn't have branding, but DarkOx's does. I'm singling out DarkOx's commenting thread, but the sentiment is widespread to my eyes, so it's not a personal thing. But, I think that attitude is a bit appropriative actually. The actual real kind of appr
-
-
-
While I don't disagree, the problem with Section 230 is that it is not at all enforced. The exemptions were allowed for common carriers, yet Facebook, Twitter and co have claimed editor status over the content on their site in Congressional hearings, but then use the exemptions to shield them as if they were a common carrier.
-
Please go actually read 230 - it pretty much extends its protection to all electronic services. The notion that it only applies to common carriers came from some corner I don't know where, and a lot of right-wing people have latched onto that. Its not true though!
Which is why its so important to go after the source of the trouble which is 230 itself. Its a bad law, all around. The rest of the CDA that was actually to give the government some tools to regulate the online world all got struck down leaving only 230 basically. So "-On A Computer" became this magic free pass to escaping any liability for libelous content, and all kinds of other responsibility for criminal activity that if print media or anyone else participated in would get them branded accomplices and land them in hot water.
Big tech has been able to profit massively while taking a giant dump on civil discourse. It should be stopped!
-
to shut down talk about how much damage killing S230 would do to the Internet. It's a debate tactic. Not something they actually believe. They don't actually believe anything. They think with S230 out of the way they can seize control of the Internet. They don't understand that they're not part of the elites making those decisions for them.
Like George Carlin said: It's a big club, and you ain't in it.
-
-
The liability exemption is for everyone who runs an "interactive computer service," not "common carriers." The text [cornell.edu] (you might want to reread it again) doesn't even mention common carriers. Grep away if you don't believe me.
And what's this nonsense about "enforcement?" When you don't get sued because of what someone else said, that is the "enforcement."
-
-
One way to address all this, and allow adults to speak as adults on adult topics (freer speech and not causing censorship)...is to immediately ban social media from use by minors.
We don't allow minors in the US to drink or smoke (legally)....and we're seeing a myriad of studies showing that it is detrimental to their mental health.
So, let's require SM sites to not allow minors on board and when they detect them, they drop those accounts, etc.
At that point that cuts a LOT of the problems out that even Bid
-
This is probably the best solution. Minors can't legally enter enforced contracts in the first place, so they really shouldn't even be doing a click-through without parental approval. Beyond that, IMHO there's certainly good cause for extending something like COPPA to all minors when it comes to social media sites.
-
Well, that's debatable. In many instances it's perfectly legal for minors to drink. [alcoholpro...utions.org] In Illinois, where I live, I can actually sit and drink with my 6 year old daughter at the dinner table.
-
-
Nobody noticed it at the time because there was no such thing as "social media". Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter didn't even exist.
Though fewer people were on the internet back then, among 1996 internet users, social media was pretty common, and possibly even the leading usage (though I don't have numbers to back that up).
Usenet was still fairly widespreadly used for discussion. So was IRC. The web was already out there, and things like user-uploads and commenting were slowly getting more common.. a
-
-
Nice FP. I want to make a joke out of it, but I can't figure out how to properly parody the Fight Club rules... Something like:
- 1. Don't talk about monopoly club
- 2. Don't talk about monopoly club
- 3. Kill any competitors, preferably in the cradle
- 4. Bribe politicians as needed for previous rule
- 5. Pray to Gawd Bork (for redefining and perverting monopoly law)
- 6. Don't talk about monopoly club
- 7. PROFIT!
Why did I think SlashHTML supported ol tags?
-
Well... Elon might be rolling in cash, as he keeps selling Tesla stock, but Twitter itself? Not so much.
-
-
The twitter files have shown no such thing. Every person testified under oath that it didn’t happen. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
-
We need a gaslight mod.
-
One of my great-great grandfathers' jobs was "modding" gas lights. He would have been very confused by this new meaning.
-
-
Here, read for yourself. https://ago.mo.gov/docs/defaul [mo.gov]... [mo.gov]
This has nothing to do with the Twitter Files or what they are showing has happened with regard to Federal Govt. pressure/influence to suppress citizen speech on social media.
I didn't have to read far..the date on your document is November 29th (and I've not read far enough yet to figure out WTF "Elvis Chan" is)...
The Twitter files didn't start being published by Matt Taibbi till December 2, 2022.
If you're going to cite something that di
-
-
-
People have testified under oath, but that doesn't change the fact that the Twitter files clearly show government officials pressuring and otherwise corecing twitter employees to remove content they don't like. They even show FBI officials pressuring Twitter executives to give false statements about the extent of Russian influence on their platform.
-
[Citation Needed] The actual emails that were filtered and released by the journalists do not show this. They show that an ex-FBI counsol who worked at Twitter decided to kill the Hunter laptop story due to being "hacked material". They also showed the FBI warning Twitter about possible meddling. The only things that offered any sort of collusion or coercion was the editorial opinions of the conservative journalists who filtered the material (and never released all of the source).
-
No citation needed, simply read the Twitter files for yourself. Among other things, they show messages from former FBI agents working at Twitter thanking current FBI agents for helping them convince Twitter execs to ban certain users. They show the FBI sending lists of users to be banned. The FBI, in some cases, even mentions that they are forwarding requests from the CIA and other intelligence agencies to Twitter. This is a huge scandal. The FBI was/is controlling what we were/are allowed to see on Twitter
-
The Twitter files also showed that the FBI paid Twitter more than 3 Million Dollars to do this. Your tax money at work.
-
They lied under oath about shadow banning, and the FBI issued takedown requests against US citizens making satirical comments about US elections, amongst other abuses. Citation provided: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/capsule-summaries-of-all-twitter
-
-
Can you link to these files?
-
Can you link to these files?
Sure, scroll to the bottom of this page [wikipedia.org] and there are links to the various released "Twitter Files".
-
> "Twitter Files"
Sadly, that's all a big nothingburger.
-
Sadly, that's all a big nothingburger.
I guess if you consider powerful and scary federal agencies strong arming, or even "suggesting" to private companies that they might want to censor some users or pull some posts, thus limiting a citizen's speech to be a "nothing burger"...well, then I guess you're right.
Personally I think it should scare the shit out of anyone on either side of the aisle...it does me.
-
-
I'm partial to citation 103.
David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, said Twitter was free to decide what content to allow on its platform, and both the Biden campaign and the Trump White House were free to make content suggestions
-
-
Here is one about the FBI censoring accounts they don't like, [twitter.com] though it isn't the only relevant thread. Here is a link to the first 12 threads [twitter.com] so you can look through them if you are interested.
-
I know your sig is a joke with the/s missing, but you're just feeding the trolls now. And by making their BS more visible, you help them accomplish their mission.
But I'm increasingly convinced George Dyson was on to something when he asked "What if the cost of machines that think is people who don't?" But "can't and never wanted to think" in the case of trolls. And Turing was correct when he predicted we would say and even believe things like "machines that think", even though he clearly didn't believe it.
-
-
-
Yes, the Twitter files are evidence that people under oath lied and committed perjury. People lie to congress all the time, Mayorkas is being impeached over what he said in congressional hearings while he said the opposite on a hot mic.
-
He has no evidence whatsoever, and this conversation is over.
-
-
-
https://ago.mo.gov/docs/defaul... [mo.gov]
Again, this doesn't have anything to do with the Twitter Files....your document was dated BEFORE the Twitter files were even released to the public.
I'm not reading any further on it unless you can elaborate how it is remotely related, maybe cite a page or two from that length document....and maybe explain how any court document dated before the twitter files has anything to do with the twitter files....?
-
The twitter files relate to events from two years ago, correct?
-
-
-
-
-
Its one company and to think big tech isn't playing both side is to be stupid.
-
That is true - but no matter what we do there is going to be one pretty powerful US government. It will always be either A or THE source of abuse. However the DOJ, CDC, Homeland Security, pick your goon squad can easily put their thumbs on a handful of big tech Google, MS, Twitter, Facebook and control the entire town square.
We would be better off if there were more independent actors, to many for them to control
-
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK