5 ms·

The act itself seems to revolve around limiting section 230 protections (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:47%20section:230%20edition:prelim) https

The act itself seems to revolve around limiting section 230 protections (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:47%20section:230%20edition:prelim) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:47%20section:...) to those who pass a checklist of TBD requirements determined by a TBD bureaucracy. I've struggled a bit to find resources helping to describe what section 230 protections are actually for, however. Many of the examples explaining section 230 protections seem to revolve around things like defamation in Youtube comments or product reviews, but I'm having trouble making the leap from that to why messengers are so concerned about this bill. Why do tools like messengers need section 230 protections to begin with? AFAICT they still have to submit to things like national security letters, so what does section 230 buy, say, Whatsapp or Signal?

jmole 6y ago
not to mention that the TBD requirements have to be approved and voted on by congress to become law. that said, there is also some text that changes specific wording in other existing laws that may have an impact on future court cases, e.g.: “(2) CIVIL REMEDY FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES RELATING TO MATERIAL INVOLVING THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF MINORS.—Conduct by a provider of an interactive computer service (as defined in section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230)) that would violate section 2252 or section 2252A if that section were applied by substituting ‘recklessly’ for ‘knowingly’ each place that term appears shall be considered a violation of section 2252 or section 2252A for purposes of paragraph (1) of this subsection.”. We could be charitable about what 'recklessly' means, but given the tendency of pre-digital judges to misunderstand technology - I can understand why there is a pushback against this kind of language. "What do you mean you don't keep a history of your clients' internet activity? I would construe that as reckless behavior."

jmole 6y ago

not to mention that the TBD requirements have to be approved and voted on by congress to become law. that said, there is also some text that changes specific wording in other existing laws that may have an impact on future court cases, e.g.: “(2) CIVIL REMEDY FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES RELATING TO MATERIAL INVOLVING THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF MINORS.—Conduct by a provider of an interactive computer service (as defined in section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230)) that would violate section 2252 or section 2252A if that section were applied by substituting ‘recklessly’ for ‘knowingly’ each place that term appears shall be considered a violation of section 2252 or section 2252A for purposes of paragraph (1) of this subsection.”. We could be charitable about what 'recklessly' means, but given the tendency of pre-digital judges to misunderstand technology - I can understand why there is a pushback against this kind of language. "What do you mean you don't keep a history of your clients' internet activity? I would construe that as reckless behavior."