4 ms·
The article continues: > “For over four years, I have raised concerns to the [Federal Trade Commission] that behavioral advertising markets are rife with fraud
by kevinh 7y ago
The article continues:
> “For over four years, I have raised concerns to the [Federal Trade Commission] that behavioral advertising markets are rife with fraud – not just in the form of clickfraud but, exploiting the scale of large platforms, in scams and criminal schemes that directly exploit American consumers,” he said in a statement. “Because of Section 230, neither the victims of these schemes nor state [attorneys general] can seek to hold the platforms accountable for their continued facilitation of these frauds.”
Which suggests that he does not want to rely solely on Facebook policing itself for accountability.
- tedunangst 7y agoThat sounds like a smokescreen for "section 230 let's people say things about me that I don't like and we need to find a way to repeal it."
- cameronbrown 7y agoIt could be either. Conflicts of interest here are huge.
- nothrabannosir 7y agoAs with a short seller lambasting a company, personal incentives can align with the public good. Can.
- dragonwriter 7y agoFor a Senator (or any other public figure), the Constitution and First Amendment case law do that (and in a superset of the circumstances to which Section 230 applies) so much that Section 230 has negligible impact, and Warner isn't (unlike, say, Donald Trump) particularly litigious on the kinds of things people say about him whether or not 230 is applicable such that there would be a reason to think he'd be seeking every minute fraction of a legal advantage on that kind of issue.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]