Supreme Court Sidesteps Challenge To Internet Companies' Broad Protections From...
source link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/23/05/18/1558243/supreme-court-sidesteps-challenge-to-internet-companies-broad-protections-from-lawsuits
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.
Supreme Court Sidesteps Challenge To Internet Companies' Broad Protections From Lawsuits
For those that don't know, this is an attack on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which granted immunity to the owners of software based communication platforms from anything their users might say, even if they moderate the content.
This was necessary because the Internet was fundamentally different than newspapers & TV, requiring new laws to protect speech online. Online platforms in particular cannot exist as a medium for the free exchange of ideas without Section 230. Without it sites like/. would have to shut down from either a deluge of lawsuits or trolls and bots.
One thing to be careful of is there is a substantial number of extremist (typically on the right wing, along with a handful of authoritarian left winger called "Nazbols") who argue eliminating S230 would improve free speech because common carrier would take over and make it so that companies could continue to operate if they didn't moderate anything.
Typically these are people advocating for various forms of violence in one way or another (either directly or indirectly via inciting forms of bigotry to the point where violence is an inevitable byproduct).
The goal here is to be able to overwhelm online platforms with their trolls & bots. As explained here [upworthy.com].
Don't be fooled. This would of course immediately kill any and all online spaces. At best some of the major ones like Twitter & Facebook could get exemptions that protected them, killing all small competitors and turning the Internet into Cable TV.
-
-
The Fed's hands need to be slapped and slapped hard.
Great, but slapping someone else (e.g. Google) for what someone else (ISIS dudes) said, does not help slap the feds at all.
Watch your aim. Slap the feds, not unrelated parties. Make NSLs illegal so that when the feds try to change what a website says (or silence it), not only do they lack the power to compel webmasters, but their attempt can be lawfully exposed.
These companies having this power then open up foreign countries to get in and push agendas..
-
I agreed until the last paragraph. The last election showed how all MSM allied with a presidential candidate will do anything they can to deny and squash a totally true story because they don't want it to affect an election. This wasn't just NYTimes holding back reporting on the Iraq war to get Bush Jr. elected, this was the entirety of social media and TV news colluding to kill a story that was actually real. As a result there are people on/. who still think the laptop was fake. It's sad
-
-
Almost any modification of section 230 would have two effects:
1. Reduce the interactive nature of the Internet.
2. Cement the position of the large Internet companies.Apparently, you are OK with watching linear TV. Most people prefer to have more flexibility about what they watch and when they watch it. But go, ahead, stay in your jail.
You recently stated that you don't care about the future, so I guess destroying the Internet doesn't bother you.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org] -
tl;dr
Silicon Valley is censoring conservatives, daddy government please fix this! -
I agree with a lot of your sentiment here.
The space has absolutely evolved, and revisiting the law seems warranted.
However, I breathed a sigh of relief that the courts didn't invent some new caselaw narrowly removing this from the realm of democracy, where it belongs.
-
-
[immunity] was necessary because the Internet was fundamentally different than newspapers & TV, requiring new laws to protect speech online. Online platforms in particular cannot exist as a medium for the free exchange of ideas without Section 230. Without it sites like/. would have to shut down from either a deluge of lawsuits or trolls and bots.
If you think about it, social media is just a bunch of personal ads. Newspapers used to moderate personal ads and charge for said moderation. What has change
-
Because you PAID for every personal ad you posted and that payment combined with the significantly lower volume and expected delay in publishing meant that it was feasible for the newspaper to review all those postings. Social media can't be done the same way.
That said, IMHO Section 230 has indeed granted powers a little too broadly. With so much communication being done online it basically puts 3 or 4 private companies in control of public discourse.
It's pretty obvious that the internet as we know it can
-
Because you PAID for every personal ad you posted and that payment combined with the significantly lower volume and expected delay in publishing meant that it was feasible for the newspaper to review all those postings. Social media can't be done the same way.
Again, why not?
-
Facebook apparently gets about half a million comments per minute [bernardmarr.com]. It's not practical to hire enough people to vet all of those.
-
Facebook apparently gets about half a million comments per minute. It's not practical to hire enough people to vet all of those.
Do you really think they would still get that many comments if people paid to post them like personal ads in a newspaper?
-
Oh, I see. No, social media in general would just die.
-
Why? People pay $9.00 to post up to 25 words in a small local newspaper. [rocket-courier.com] Social media should be much cheaper with no printing or distribution costs.
-
Would you post regularly, given that you'd have to hand over payment information, and the price would have to be at least enough to cover the transaction fees, so like 50 cents?
Would enough of your friends post regularly for you to bother to look at the app?
Would enough people answer "yes" to those to maintain advertiser revenue?
If not, they go out of business. -
People pay newspapers because thousands of people still read them. People pay facebook to promote their posts to thousands of people. I'm obviously not going to pay to share my non-commercial post with my 20 facebook friends, and neither are any of my friends, and I'm not going to stay on the site if I can't see what my friends are posting, and neither or they. At that point, advertisers would no longer be interested in paying to promote their posts to tiny remaining audience that consists only of other adv
-
"If you don't pay for the product, you are the product."
Do you enjoy being the product, Gavagai80?
-
-
-
-
-
Assuming three 8-hour shifts, and assuming that it takes a whole minute to review each comment (on average), you would need 1.5 million people to do that. Assuming adequate language proficiency, you could maybe do this in a relatively low-wage country like India for $6.35 per day, which would cost only about $3.7 billion per year. That's only about 3% of Facebook's annual revenue. So ignoring the payroll nightmare, it isn't *entirely* infeasible, at least in theory.:-)
Now I'm not saying it makes *sense*
-
-
-
-
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK