57 ms·

DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

• iron0013 6y ago
  The barely concealed subtext here seems to be that this is not at all about monopolies, and is really about forcing Google to return search results favorable to conservative politicians and ideologies.
  • Spartan-S63 6y ago
    Of course it is. Conservatives have raced so quickly to the right that they've outrun the Overton Window. So rather than snap back, they're trying to push Big Tech to accelerate the movement of the window.
    • aspenmayer 6y ago
      Big Tech tries to play for both teams by writing the legislation that regulates Big Tech, while making money from large government contracts and making public statements of support for more or less or certain kinds of regulations, depending on the company and the context. The personal is political in life and in business. Regulation could make currently profitable companies less profitable, and would thus make compliance a foregone conclusion. If the public wills that business and data collection practices should change, and such changes mandated by law, Big Tech will change, and the status quo would change. Those that currently benefit from the status quo make noises about changing it in an effort to guide and forestall such change as long as it is profitable to do so, to ensure the possibility of increasing profits in the future.
    • DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
      > Conservatives have raced so quickly to the right ... I'd like to suggest that we use care with the term "conservative". Is it possible that the parent post conflates "conservative" with "Republican"? I'm no authority on the U.S. Republic party, but I know it's sometimes said that that party has shifted hard to "the right". I could believe that's true, which would line up with the parent post. However, some of my own political views would be considered "conservative" in the traditional sense, and I don't think they've undergone a hard shift to the right.
      • tstrimple 6y ago
        Where is this wealth of principled conservatives people keep pretending exist, but are no where to be seen in politics or political discussions? Like it or not, Republicans are the "conservative" party and around 95% of them support Trump and the vast majority of them consider themselves to be conservatives. Attempts from conservatives to distance themselves from the Republican party just reek of No true Scotsman.
        • DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
          > Like it or not, Republicans are the "conservative" party and around 95% of them support Trump and the vast majority of them consider themselves to be conservatives. I apologize but I may be missing your point. In the GP, I was suggesting that the term "conservative" is being used in competing ways by different groups, and we should be clear on that. Are you saying that it's not worth making such a distinction, because the vast, vast majority of the public use the term "conservative" to mean "whatever the Republican party's platform is"?
          • tstrimple 6y ago
            If the vast majority of the public use the term conservative to mean Republican, that's pretty much what the words mean. That's how language works. Conservatives of today have the same hallmarks as the original conservatives. It's little to nothing to do with sound fiscal policy or responsible spending or size of government and everything to do with maintaining social hierarchies. From that perspective, Trump supporters are definitely conservative.
            • DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
              > That's how language works. I agree. It sounds like we have disagreeing estimates regarding how popular each definition is. We may be at an impasse on this, unless you know of a good source of reliable data for it.
      • Brendinooo 6y ago
  • slowmovintarget 6y ago
    The legislation asks them to take their finger off the scales, not put it on the other side. > The current interpretations of Section 230 have enabled online platforms to hide behind the immunity to censor lawful speech in bad faith and is inconsistent with their own terms of service. To remedy this, the department’s legislative proposal revises and clarifies the existing language of Section 230 and replaces vague terms that may be used to shield arbitrary content moderation decisions with more concrete language that gives greater guidance to platforms, users, and courts. > > The legislative proposal also adds language to the definition of “information content provider” to clarify when platforms should be responsible for speech that they affirmatively and substantively contribute to or modify. From the proposal: > a. Replace Vague Terminology in (c)(2). First, the Department supports replacing the vague catch-all “otherwise objectionable” language in Section 230(c)(2) with “unlawful” and “promotes terrorism.” This reform would focus the broad blanket immunity for content moderation decisions on the core objective of Section 230—to reduce online content harmful to children—while limiting a platform's ability to remove content arbitrarily or in ways inconsistent with its terms or service simply by deeming it “objectionable.” That cuts both ways, you know... like it's supposed to.
    • joshuamorton 6y ago
      > The legislation asks them to take their finger off the scales What do you mean? In what way is the DOJ's finger on the scale? Either facebook is free to manage itself as it sees fit, or it isn't. But if it isn't, then that's the finger being on the scale. That's the government controlling facebook. If you want the government controlling facebook's editorial powers, that's all well and good, but it's putting its finger on the scales.
      • jaywalk 6y ago
        Not the DOJ, the tech companies. Their fingers are on the scale.
        • joshuamorton 6y ago
          That's a claim, yes. The government is [implicitly] claiming that tech companies are being inconsistent. To fix this, the government is stepping in and regulating speech. A perfect solution.
  • tathougies 6y ago
    Given that large swaths of the American public believe in these 'conservative' ideologies, a more charitable interpretation would be that DOJ is looking out for American's ability to speak freely in the brave new world that is the digital public square. And make no mistake about it. This is a racial issue. As noted by the LA times (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-02/democrats-blacks-latinos-white-liberals-biden https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-02/democrats-b...), both blacks and asians are more likely than liberal whites to favor stricter immigration policies and to be skeptical of both political correctness and the new politics of sex and gender. Blacks are also more conservative on 'anti-racism' than liberal whites. Other research shows that hispanic liberals are also significantly to the right of liberal whites on many social issues, such as abortion. Thankfully, the DOJ is looking out for the rights of all Americans, not just coastal white elite liberals.
• matthewdgreen 6y ago
  This is probably the most impactful tech news on HN right now, but of course it's rated lower than some story on Adobe's plans to mess up PDF.
  • stefan_ 6y ago
    There is new proposed internet legislation every week, an EFF donation drive every two weeks, Reddit shuts down every month for some protest. At this point, I'm just beyond fatigued by it all.
    • whatshisface 6y ago
      And when you finally run out of energy, wham, every website will require approval by a committee chaired by the speaker of the house and several tech CEOs. :)
  • rco8786 6y ago
    It's second from the top right now and it's only an hour old.
  • coffeefirst 6y ago
    Not really. They can ask congress nicely but unless both the house and senate agree to pick it up, it's just another dumb letter on fancy stationary.
• jagged-chisel 6y ago
  > ... hold online platforms accountable both when they unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online. If these proposed changes are enacted, I await the catch-22 where an "online platform" is sued in relation to the same content; first where they "censored" something and then had to put it back online, and second as "knowingly facilitating criminal activity" because it's online.
  • mmcconnell1618 6y ago
    If Fox News is streaming over YouTube TV, is it an online service that can be sued for moderating content in bad faith? Who gets sued? Fox News, YouTube TV, my ISP?
    • hartator 6y ago
      Everyone.
      • mtnGoat 6y ago
        in the united states, this is the correct answer. sadly.
      • mywittyname 6y ago
        Sue'm all and the let the judge sort them out.
  • gabereiser 6y ago
    I was just about to say... > when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online. Does this include the criminal misinformation campaigns the GOP love to quote as free speech? What justifies criminality? And WTF is the justice department doing writing laws? That’s outside their jurisdiction. Congress writes laws. But I guess when your political party owns congress, the White House, and the justice department... you can do whatever you want regardless of the constitution.
    • 6y ago
• WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
  As usual for Section 230 stuff, Mike Mansick at Techdirt has the thoughtful, sourced analysis - including all the players and a history of their past actions https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200921/22345845352/trump-still-hates-1st-amendment-meeting-with-state-attorneys-general-to-tell-them-to-investigate-internet-companies-bias.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200921/22345845352/trump...
  • InTheArena 6y ago
    The title and by-line to this article doesn't make me think that this analysis is at all thoughtful or sourced. It may be, but it seems like it may also be a 13 year old boy trolling another kid at school.
  • vorpalhex 6y ago
    I used to be a very regular reader of techdirt but it's become clear to me their quality has declined and they've been going for clickbait headlines full time since changing the monetization strategy. Masnick still makes some valid points but they're few and far inbetween, and the other site writers are generally not a beneficial read.
    • annoyingnoob 6y ago
      Techdirt has always been that way, you just started noticing. Mike is all about the clicks. Mike seems to never be wrong, according to himself. Mike will distance himself from his own words when convenient. Techdirt should be called The Daily Outrage.
      • WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
        I am impressed with how far off-base your analysis is. I mean, I'm struggling to frame the state of mind where someone might assemble those conclusions. Techdirt's headlines reflect exactly what's in the article. Instead of click-baity, a reasonable person might call that accurate. Mike Mansick's coverage of complex legal articles is extraordinarily good. He's one of a small number of journalists who make complex legal understandable without butchering or omitting relevant details. As for the Daily Outrage, well, okay. Techdirt covers outrageous behavior. TDA is a little simplistic but it's not off base. A relevant side note: I've been calling out biased reporting for 30 years. Not because it makes my bad team look bad but because addressing bad behavior unequally provides nurturing spaces for it to thrive. Techdirt is one of the few publications that consistently called out bad behavior by the Obama administration - sometimes it was the ONLY publication doing so. I didn't want to see Obama vilified or lionized. I wanted corruption outed and problems fixed and I really don't give a damn who the PotUS is. Feel free to respond here with other news publications that don't change their national coverage methods, depending on who's holding the White House.
• greatgib 6y ago
  I think that the title is correct but it is not very descriptive of what it is about for people having a look at it. Tldr quote from it: "We therefore urge Congress to make these necessary reforms to Section 230 and begin to hold online platforms accountable both when they unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online.”
  • tzs 6y ago
    Online platforms "censoring" speech was never unlawful. What section 230 did was protect them from liability over speech that they did not censor. E.g., if I posted a libelous comment about you in the comments section of an online platform, section 230 protected the online platform from being sued by you for libel over my comment. Weakening the 230 protections will do nothing to encourage platforms to censor less. Indeed, it will have the opposite effect. I haven't read the proposal, but if it goes beyond just weakening 230 and instead tries to say platforms cannot censor speech, then it won't get past the First Amendment.
  • coldcode 6y ago
    Congress will not likely accept this law without major changes and the DoJ, unless we wind up tossing out the Constitution entirely (which could still happen sadly), cannot create law.
  • greatgib 6y ago
    It's completely crazy, I don't get why my previous comment was so much down voted. To me it does not make any sense at all... Did anyone understood it like if I was giving a pro or con opinion? I tried just to clarify in a short text what it was about for people not being aware of what 'section 230' is. Also now there are a lot of longer comments, so that could be more explicit. Would anyone have a logic explanation to share with me?
• hartator 6y ago
  I think that’s fine to ask social medias to choose between being a publisher or a platform. It’s perfectly fine to push your point of view online as it’s protected by the first. But you should bare consequences for the cases not protected by the first.
  • buhhh 6y ago
    I don't think you understand the first amendment.
    • hartator 6y ago
      Enlight us. For example, calling for the murders of specific people based on their political views or races don’t fall under the first. And social medias allow the spread of some of these messages with no consequences at the moment.
      • Miner49er 6y ago
        how is that not protected under the first amendment?
        • fredgrott 6y ago
          also private speech is more free-er than public speech
      • buttersbrian 6y ago
        That's not exactly true. "Speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely." Someone randomly spouting off that people of a race or ideology should be wiped out doesn't always/exactly pass this legal test.
        • refurb 6y ago
          Great point. Visit any US neo-Nazi website and you’ll see language that one could argue is “threatening to a specific group”. But unless it’s “hey, everyone gather at 5 pm on Main St so we can start shooting people”, it’s still protected language.
• altcognito 6y ago
  Almost guaranteed to be used to selectively prosecute.
  • edoceo 6y ago
    All laws in the USA; as is tradition.
    • jaywalk 6y ago
      All laws everywhere.
      • sixstringtheory 6y ago
        This is all so true. Law enforcement depends on the individual doing the enforcement at a particular time and place; the actual law and your interpretation don't matter. Justice depends on groups of individuals coming together to make decisions, as does legislating. All of these people are going to make mistakes, at best. To bring it back around to the topic at hand, I think this enforcement action is a mistake.
      • pionar 6y ago
        The US does have a small amount of protection against this. Selective prosecution can be a reason for a judge to dismiss a charge. I'm not aware of how often it's used/successful, though.
    • donatj 6y ago
      GDPR was explicitly stated to be intended to be enforced selectively.
      • esarbe 6y ago
        Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs.
  • mhh__ 6y ago
    Laws are always enforced by humans, so this is always true. What is different about these proposals is that they are explicitly prompted by partisan (and personal i.e. Trump) motives which, although it's true of other laws too, is supposed to be the quiet part not said out loud. The whole premise of investigating for "bias" is clearly designed to be abused - similar to HUAC asking you to prove that you aren't a communist
• InTheArena 6y ago
  here is the DoJ's breakdown and red-line changes: 1. Incentivizing Online Platforms to Address Illicit Content The first category of potential reforms is aimed at incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online, while preserving the core of Section 230’s immunity for defamation. a. Bad Samaritan Carve-Out. First, the Department proposes denying Section 230 immunity to truly bad actors. The title of Section 230’s immunity provision—“Protection for ‘Good Samaritan’ Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material”—makes clear that Section 230 immunity is meant to incentivize and protect responsible online platforms. It therefore makes little sense to immunize from civil liability an online platform that purposefully facilitates or solicits third-party content or activity that would violate federal criminal law. b. Carve-Outs for Child Abuse, Terrorism, and Cyber-Stalking. Second, the Department proposes exempting from immunity specific categories of claims that address particularly egregious content, including (1) child exploitation and sexual abuse, (2) terrorism, and (3) cyber-stalking. These targeted carve-outs would halt the over-expansion of Section 230 immunity and enable victims to seek civil redress in causes of action far afield from the original purpose of the statute. c. Case-Specific Carve-outs for Actual Knowledge or Court Judgments. Third, the Department supports reforms to make clear that Section 230 immunity does not apply in a specific case where a platform had actual knowledge or notice that the third party content at issue violated federal criminal law or where the platform was provided with a court judgment that content is unlawful in any respect. 2. Clarifying Federal Government Enforcement Capabilities to Address Unlawful Content A second category reform would increase the ability of the government to protect citizens from harmful and illicit conduct. These reforms would make clear that the immunity provided by Section 230 does not apply to civil enforcement actions brought by the federal government. Civil enforcement by the federal government is an important complement to criminal prosecution. 3. Promoting Competition A third reform proposal is to clarify that federal antitrust claims are not covered by Section 230 immunity. Over time, the avenues for engaging in both online commerce and speech have concentrated in the hands of a few key players. It makes little sense to enable large online platforms (particularly dominant ones) to invoke Section 230 immunity in antitrust cases, where liability is based on harm to competition, not on third-party speech. 4. Promoting Open Discourse and Greater Transparency A fourth category of potential reforms is intended to clarify the text and original purpose of the statute in order to promote free and open discourse online and encourage greater transparency between platforms and users. a. Replace Vague Terminology in (c)(2). First, the Department supports replacing the vague catch-all “otherwise objectionable” language in Section 230(c)(2) with “unlawful” and “promotes terrorism.” This reform would focus the broad blanket immunity for content moderation decisions on the core objective of Section 230—to reduce online content harmful to children—while limiting a platform's ability to remove content arbitrarily or in ways inconsistent with its terms or service simply by deeming it “objectionable.” b. Provide Definition of Good Faith. Second, the Department proposes adding a statutory definition of “good faith,” which would limit immunity for content moderation decisions to those done in accordance with plain and particular terms of service and accompanied by a reasonable explanation, unless such notice would impede law enforcement or risk imminent harm to others. Clarifying the meaning of "good faith" should encourage platforms to be more transparent and accountable to their users, rather than hide behind blanket Section 230 protections. c. Explicitly Overrule Stratton Oakmont to Avoid Moderator’s Dilemma. Third, the Department proposes clarifying that a platform’s removal of content pursuant to Section 230(c)(2) or consistent with its terms of service does not, on its own, render the platform a publisher or speaker for all other content on its service. and https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download I highly recommend looking at the redline. It's approachable, and doesn't fall into the interpretation biases of the reporter.
• analyte123 6y ago
  The changes to the existing “Good Samaritan” section basically do what they said they were going to do: change it so that the section about providers not being publishers and the section about liability for blocking are independent, and clarify what “good faith” in blocking means. Basically the standard for civil immunity is slightly higher for blocking content than providing content. This is weird and still a big change by itself, but it is a reasonable topic for debate, I think. The new ridiculously named “Bad Samaritan” section is a disaster that wipes out the point of the “Good Samaritan” section and is basically a combination of the mandatory CSA reporting law and SESTA/FOSTA for all federal and state laws. It’s so bad it almost seems like a poison pill.
  • tboyd47 6y ago
    Can you explain more why the section is particularly disastrous? I agree that it's a dumb name. The section: (1) “BAD SAMARITAN” CARVE-OUT. Subsection (c)(1) shall not apply in any criminal prosecution under State law or any State or Federal civil action brought against an interactive computer service provider if, at the time of the facts giving rise to the prosecution or action, the service provider acted purposefully with the conscious object to promote, solicit, or facilitate material or activity by another information content provider that the service provider knew or had reason to believe would violate Federal criminal law, if knowingly disseminated or engaged in.
    • analyte123 6y ago
      If someone is selling drugs, distributing copyrighted material, publishing defamatory things, or participating in any other crime on your platform and you know about it, you lose 230 immunity for all content. Maybe this would encourage E2E encryption, but... If you read further, every single provider that allows user content also has to have a tipline for criminal activity and keep records on it.
      • tboyd47 6y ago
        Interesting. Thanks.
• syspec 6y ago
  If they would like to investigate social media for anti-conservative bias, does that mean it'd be okay for attorney general of other states to investigate Fox News for bias, or Breitbart? Of course not.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • jaywalk 6y ago
    Fox News and Breitbart are both publishers, and do not claim to be platforms to shield themselves from liability. Totally different.
    • heavyset_go 6y ago
      Both of them run comments sections and websites where they publish content from users.
• kube-system 6y ago
  It looks like this makes service providers liable for illegal content if they do not keep logs for 1 year? Am I reading that correctly?
  • analyte123 6y ago
    It’s not just illegal content, it includes “facilitation” of any illegal activity. The logs are only required when law enforcement notifies you of the activity. But if they think you know about the activity and are consciously promoting it, they don’t even need to notify you. My guess is they will probably revise this part.
    • heyheyheysome 6y ago
      After hosting militia organization and planning pages, would Facebook be liable for the Kenosha shootings under this legislation?
      • mhh__ 6y ago
        Well, Facebook are "friends" (or at least friendly to) those currently in power so practically probably.
    • purple-again 6y ago
      Reddit has a subreddit that’s main purpose is helping you to shoplift without getting caught. I always assumed it was free speech laws protecting it. Does this mean there will be another incoming subreddit purge?
      • heavyset_go 6y ago
        Discussion about using marijuana in medicinal context would also need to be purged, because it is an illegal Schedule I substance at the federal level. People that use any drug are free to talk about it because of the first amendment, but the proposed legislation would prevent anyone from being able to share their experiences online, because their service providers might be liable for facilitating illegal activity. That's a scary precedent.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• jb775 6y ago
  This is essentially putting penalties in place if social media companies use dark patterns in their algorithms behind the scenes. Long term, this is good for everyone.
• buttersbrian 6y ago
  Phrases like "has an objectively reasonable belief" give me chills and is RIPE for abuse. Also, modifying the language of Civil Liability to include good faith efforts for language that could be deemed "unlawful" is .... sneaky, and again, ripe for abuse.
  • mjh2539 6y ago
    The irony is that phrases like that are actually the least ripe for abuse because there is a ton of case law concerning them. I.e. they have a very specific meaning in regard to the law/statute/code. They're legalese, and legalese is your (lawyer's) friend.
    • mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      The lack of imagination for how Republican court packing could flip that around is dire.
      • aspaceman 6y ago
        You couldn't pack courts to change the meaning of a phrase like this. It's not like I can come in as a new judge, say that I interpret these words a certain way, and plow my way forward. The wording has to be accepted within the technical jargon of the field. You know how we have words like compile, build, "binary", or executable? It's the same thing. Expanding the interpretation of the law is expanding the interpretation of a highly technical definition and takes much more skill than saying "I interpret the words this way".
        • zerocrates 6y ago
          > The wording has to be accepted within the technical jargon of the field. Huh? If a majority Supreme Court decides a phrase "really" means X in a certain context, it means X for the rest of the courts. The "technical jargon of the field" notwithstanding. They're often the source of that jargon. The Slaughter-House Cases famously by a 5-4 vote reduced the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment to a dead letter only 5 years after its enactment. A handful of years later it specifically held that despite the 14th Amendment, the First and Second Amendments didn't apply to the states. But then, despite no actual relevant change in the Constitution itself, the Bill of Rights began to be applied to the states by the Supreme Court in the 1900s, through the somewhat roundabout method of the Due Process Clause instead. Or choose some other example, if you prefer. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard that has formed the basis of Fourth Amendment law for decades rests on the court's novel interpretation of the stubbornly unchanged words of the Fourth Amendment in the 1960s. The Supreme Court wields huge power to interpret the law untethered to any pre-existing rule, if it so chooses.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• tschwimmer 6y ago
  An interesting tidbit I found after some digging: "Carve-Out for Actors Who Purposefully Blind Themselves and Law Enforcement to Illicit Material" The recommendations suggest that sec. 230 protections not be extended to platforms that intentionally structure themselves in a way to make giving information to law enforcement difficult or impossible. This probably bodes poorly for private by design forums with aggressive log flushing policies (I'm specifically thinking of things like 4chan, which claims to permanently and irrevocably delete data aggressively).
  • analyte123 6y ago
    This is not in the current proposal. It would basically ban end-to-end encryption. The current proposal is still pretty bad, though.
    • t-writescode 6y ago
      There's other areas that discuss a ban of E2E encryption. Specifically this: >>One important way to confront the grave and worsening problem of illicit and unlawful material on the internet is to ensure that providers do not design or operate their systems in any manner that results in an inability to identify or access most (if not all) unlawful content. Such designs and operation put our society at risk by: (1) severely eroding a company’s ability to detect and respond to illegal content and activity; (2) preventing or seriously inhibiting the timely identification of offenders, as well as the identification and rescue of victims; (3) impeding law enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute serious crimes; (4) and depriving victims of the evidence necessary to bring private civil cases directly against perpetrators.
• mullingitover 6y ago
  What's stopping web sites from getting around all this with some basic changes to their terms of use?
  • filoleg 6y ago
    Terms of use are not legally binding in case they contain something that contradicts the existing law, just like any other contracts. For example, imagine an employer wrote an employment contract signed by all employees that said something obviously against the law, like "if you get pregnant, we are letting you go". Even though employees signed this contract, that specific clause was against the law, so there is no way to legally enforce it. If the employer tries to legally enforce it, they will be in for a rude awakening. Another, more realistic, example. Let's say you are about to get married and decide to get a pre-nup. Both you and your partner sign it. Let's say both signed a clause that says "any future earnings made during this marriage will get split 90/10 in case of the divorce, not as a 50/50 split". If divorce actually happens, this clause will be entirely useless, despite both parties willingly signing it. Both of the people who signed it will be able to claim total 50/50 on the split, even if they initially agreed to a different split. tl;dr: the law overrides anything one can put into their terms of use or any other contract.
  • anonHacker2 6y ago
    Subparagraph (c)1(B) says that the only safe harbor for removing content is (c)(2). (c)(2)(A) restricts the criteria that can be used to remove content to the following: "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, promoting terrorism or violent extremism, harassing, promoting self-harm, or unlawful". Furthermore, section (c)(1)(C) implies that removing ANY content by a user could make the forum liable for ALL OTHER content posted by that user, unless there is "good faith", but "good faith" is defined in section (g)(5)(A) to require all moderation criteria to be defined with "particularity". Most open-ended subjective moderation criteria (such as used on Hacker News e.g. "Be kind. Don't be snarky") could be construed to lack "particularity" and is often about things not on the list in (c)(2)(A).
    • mullingitover 6y ago
• ROARosen 6y ago
  I don't care for most of it except this: >> Carve-Out for Actors Who Purposefully Blind Themselves and Law Enforcement to Illicit Material >>...it makes little sense to apply “Good Samaritan” immunity to a provider that intentionally designs or operates its services in a way that impairs its ability to identify criminal activity occurring on (or through) its services, or to produce relevant information to government authorities lawfully seeking to enforce criminal laws. A Good Samaritan is not someone who buries his or her head in the sand, or, worse, blinds others who want to help. >>One important way to confront the grave and worsening problem of illicit and unlawful material on the internet is to ensure that providers do not design or operate their systems in any manner that results in an inability to identify or access most (if not all) unlawful content. Such designs and operation put our society at risk by: (1) severely eroding a company’s ability to detect and respond to illegal content and activity; (2) preventing or seriously inhibiting the timely identification of offenders, as well as the identification and rescue of victims; (3) impeding law enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute serious crimes; (4) and depriving victims of the evidence necessary to bring private civil cases directly against perpetrators. >>We propose making clear that, in order to enjoy the broad immunity of Section 230, an internet platform must respect public safety by ensuring its ability to identify unlawful content or activity occurring on its services. Further, the provider must maintain the ability to assist government authorities to obtain content (i.e., evidence) in a comprehensible, readable, and usable format pursuant to court authorization (or any other lawful basis). Is this the end of online privacy as we know it? From here: https://www.justice.gov/file/1286331/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1286331/download
  • kordlessagain 6y ago
    > Is this the end of online privacy as we know it? That would imply there was online privacy at some point, or at least that it was a thing that all users could reasonably understand and achieve. If users understood that Facebook's business model might eventually require what (in hind-sight) appeared to be multiple privacy violations, but continued to use the service anyway because they couldn't help themselves, they really never had online privacy when using the service. For those of you down-voting me, I'm pointing out this is a fallacious argument talking about online privacy. The companies who built these huge platforms didn't bake in online privacy when they built and evolved their systems. Talking about it like we've "lost it" is pointless, but I do think it's worth exploring how we can make it better!
• shmerl 6y ago
  Seeing Barr on the proposal makes it look DOA. He also wanted to mandate compromised encryption for everyone's security benefit.
• kevin_b_er 6y ago
  And the problem here is that it is inseparable from the political issue. The core is 4a, replace vague terminology. The point is to end 230 unless social media is compelled to reproduce right wing content. Nothing else. The other stuff about illegal material doesn't really matter. Why this? Because this is all right wing media talks about with respect to 230. They want social media punished for removing their material. They publish their vicious lies which are removed by the website. Then they loudly proclaim the constitution is the reason. So we can see through the politics. The rest of the proposed bill is fluff. The part that matters is the compelled speech. So we have this: "Publish our lies or you are liable for all other user content that might be illegal."
  • ryanobjc 6y ago
    Right wing 'material' is often refused for inciting violence, targeted harassment, and more now explicit lies on matters of significant civic importance - such as when/where to vote, lying health info in the middle of a pandemic, etc. It's bad faith content, then when their crap is reasonably removed, there's endless crying. In fact a lot of the bad faith content is mixed up deliberately with political speech to incite action which allows them to claim marytrdom. If you do a long youtube video that is mostly political speech, and then you mix in a 5 minute targeted violent harassment in the middle, youtube is going to remove the whole thing. This is total bad faith. The ironic thing is right-wing "alternative forums" to reddit/youtube/twitter, all have extensive moderation because, surprise surprise, trolling behavior degrades the value of online discussion boards. Don't be surprised if all you do is stand in a theater yelling you are shown the door. Or worse, you start yelling threats at another movie goer. That's the real analogy of 'right wing content' being banned.
• anonHacker2 6y ago
  This law would make it illegal to host discussion forums such as Hacker News. Subparagraph (c)1(B) says that the only safe harbor for removing content is (c)(2). (c)(2)(A) restricts the criteria that can be used to remove content to the following: "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, promoting terrorism or violent extremism, harassing, promoting self-harm, or unlawful". The current Hacker News Guidelines contain stuff like "Be kind. Don't be snarky". These are broader than the text in (c)(2)(A). Therefore the safe harbor may not apply. Worse, section (c)(1)(C) implies that removing ANY content by a user could make the forum liable for ALL OTHER content posted by that user, unless there is "good faith", but "good faith" is defined in section (g)(5)(A) to require all moderation criteria to be defined with "particularity". "Be kind. Don't be snarky" could be construed to lack "particularity". The only alternative provided by this law would be to only remove content according to extremely legalistic moderation criteria. In my personal experience, all high-quality open forums require moderation with a degree of subjectivity with open-ended criteria similar to our Hacker News Guidelines. Given the legal risks of having to go to trial to argue about whether you are a "publisher" of other people's forum comments, it would be foolish for anyone to continue to employ open-ended moderation under this law.
  • heavyset_go 6y ago
    With such proposed laws on the books, I don't see how anyone would start a new company that does anything at all with user generated content, as the risk for significant criminal liability is just too high. Only billion dollar companies would be able to afford to curate and make sure not a single law was broken ever, at any time, by one of their users. Imagine having your home raided in the middle of the night because someone thought it would be funny to upload illegal content to your startup's servers. Now imagine being bankrupted and sent to prison afterwards.
    • shard972 6y ago
      Maybe we can go back to the days of hosting our own content. It's not like we don't have the technology
    • api 6y ago
• anonHacker2 6y ago
  Section (d)(2)(B) makes it illegal NOT to "expeditiously" remove illegal content once a provider has "actual notice" of illegality. If someone has a blog that they don't really maintain, someone else posts an illegal comment, a third person flags the illegal comment, and the blog owner doesn't get around to moderating their blog for a few months, do they go to jail? That same section would make it difficult for web hosting providers and DNS providers not to take down other people's websites immediately if they receive any complaint about any illegal comment on those websites (they already do this sometimes, but this would make the problem worse). This would make it easy for trolls to take down small forums or blogs without the means to employ a 24/7 moderation team; just post something illegal then immediately complain about your own comment to the DNS provider before a moderator even has a chance to see it. The only solution allowed by this law would be for small forums to pre-moderate all content. https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download
• anonHacker2 6y ago
  Section (g)(3) says that "Being responsible in whole or in part for the creation or development of information includes, but is not limited to, instances in which a person or entity... comments upon ... or affirmatively and substantively contributes to, modifies, or alters information provided by another person". This implies that one editor of a wiki could be held responsible for not noticing and removing illegal content posted by another user while they edit a page. https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download
• annoyingnoob 6y ago
  Authoritarian laws wrapped in a 'save the children' package make a mockery of our legal system.
• anonHacker2 6y ago
  Something like this will probably pass eventually because there is bipartisan support. Biden said in January that he thinks that Section 230 should be "revoked... immediately.”
• foxtr0t 6y ago
  Hard to not view this as dead on arrival. The House won't take up any major legislation emanating from the White House/DOJ in an election year, especially given Barr's corruption as AG.
• hawkice 6y ago
  Unsurprisingly, this is pretty horrifying for anyone who cares about either the 1st or 4th amendments (and the 5th amendment considerations of 'you can't blind yourself to bad content stuff', that's amazingly bad). It blows my mind this isn't a separations of powers concern to even allow these people to draft language or make any statements on the record of what they think the law ought to be.
  • beervirus 6y ago
    It blows my mind that anyone who purports to care about the first amendment would argue that we shouldn’t “allow these people to draft language or make any statements on the record of what they think the law ought to be.”
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • ti00 6y ago
      There is a difference between an individual acting in their individual capacity and an entire department of the federal government.
    • vcxy 6y ago
      The rights protected in the first amendment don't apply to a department of the executive branch drafting language for the legislative branch.
      • beervirus 6y ago
        The comment was about “these people,” not the DOJ qua DOJ.
        • vcxy 6y ago
          I guess I don't get it. I thought (and it still seems) that "these people" refers to the DOJ. To be clear, I don't agree with the person you replied to, so we probably agree in the end, I just didn't agree with your comment as I read it either. But I guess I'm not parsing something correctly here...
• donatj 6y ago
  The argument is always made that the First Amendment doesn't protect speech hosted on corporate servers. I don't agree, I believe if you're operating without individual content review, you're hosting speech in the same way a telephone company is, but sure, I'll let you have it.. Regardless, that's where Article 19 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights comes in. > "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" … - "any media" - "regardless of frontiers" Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
  • buhhh 6y ago
    Well the first amendment isn't Article 19 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not sure where you're going with that.
    • donatj 6y ago
      The point is that speech hosted on "new frontiers" is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regardless to whether or not it's protected by the First Amendment.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • freeone3000 6y ago
        Hey, wanna guess what international human rights declaration the US is not a signatory of?
  • sudosysgen 6y ago
    The US, as with most States, cares little about the UDHR. The only human rights you have are those that the government suffers too strong a penalty to disrespect, and there is no real penalty for running foul of the UDHR. It's sad, but it is what it is.
  • 6y ago
• ashtonkem 6y ago
  Yeah, that’s not suspicious at all. Also, the DOJ really should back off here. They’re an article II department, their job is enforcement and not legislation. If the law should change, that is emphatically congresses responsibility. They can recommend all they want, it should be valueless though.
  • gwright 6y ago
    > DOJ really should back off here > They can recommend all they want Isn't that what they are doing, recommending? Your statements seem contradictory.
    • disappearance 6y ago
      Fairly sure the US DOJ had gone well beyond ‘recommending’ moves and actions outside of norms or status quo in recent months...
    • ashtonkem 6y ago
      And we should tell them to <bleep> off.
    • adrianmonk 6y ago
      I think when the person above you said recommendations should be "valueless", they meant it should be a neutral, objective recommendation. Like you've tasked us with enforcing laws A, B, and C, and if you gave us powers D, E, and F it would make that easier in these ways. Not like Barr's words: "For too long Section 230 has provided a shield for online platforms to operate with impunity. Ensuring that the internet is a safe, but also vibrant, open and competitive environment is vitally important to America." Because those are Trump/Barr opinions or value judgments about how good or bad the recent state of affairs has been and about what is supposed to be important to America. Law enforcement isn't supposed to set the policy objectives. They're just supposed to implement them.
      • ashtonkem 6y ago
        > I think when the person above you said recommendations should be "valueless", they meant it should be a neutral, objective recommendation. No, I mean that the DOJ's opinion on what the law should be is literally without merit, and possibly is worth even less than that. The creation, implementation, and adjudication of the laws are separated into distinct branches of government by design. I do not want the group that is responsible for enforcing the laws weighing in on what they think the law should be; one does not ask the group that will wield the power what powers they ought to have if one wants it to end well for everyone else. I would be much happier if the DOJ stuck to enforcing the laws as written and would prefer if they would kindly shut up and go away on the issue of what laws they think should be written. Edit: To be clear, I also think that Barr is full of it. He's blown any credibility of being anything but a partisan hack. But even with a different AG and a different administration, the idea of the DOJ recommending to Congress what powers it should have strikes me as very much a bad idea, and I would say that even if I was otherwise happy with the administration suggesting it.
• teknopaul 6y ago
  Details schmetails, this is clearly Trump's promise to retaliate against Twitter for making his posts as dubious. The man is so fabulously self obsessed.
• sailfast 6y ago
  Having a legislative affairs office is one thing, but publishing draft legislation? That seems WAY out of line for an executive department. Why are my tax dollars being used for the executive to write laws?
  • gwright 6y ago
    Why are there so many people here surprised that executive departments participate in proposing legislation? It seems like completely normal activity to me.
    • mmazing 6y ago
      I guess that depends - is it a frequent occurrence, historically?
      • gwright 6y ago
        It happens all the time. It is a completely mundane part of the daily functioning of government.
        • velosol 6y ago
          Further there are often laws that basically state "here's some general guide, executive agency X will figure out the specifics and publish that in the Fed Register as regulations."
          • sailfast 6y ago
            The law instructs them to write the rules / guidance.It’s their responsibility to then do that and we fund them to do that. Agencies don’t get funded to write the law that gives them the mandate to write the regulation. That’s a classic bureaucratic self-licking ice cream cone.
        • sailfast 6y ago
          In my experience this is not at all normal. Any more examples off-hand if agencies writing draft legislation? Not talking rulemaking, talking actual law. Would happily be proven wrong here but it’s something I have actively seen agencies avoid in the past, so I’m curious where you’ve seen this kind of overt draft legislation written.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• g42gregory 6y ago
  Wouldn’t it be better to keep the existing 230 for companies with less than, say, 100 million users? And remove 230 protection altogether for companies with more than 100 million users? This would let the startup ecosystem flourish. It would also seriously hamstrung large companies. Would this be a bad thing, though?
  • polyomino 6y ago
    It's unknown whether disparate startups would do a better job with things like attacks from state actors compared to the giants. Obviously, as things become more consequential, people would rather have entities they can hold accountable. However I think our mechanisms of holding entities to account are ineffective, big or small.
  • dannyw 6y ago
    I don’t think so, because section 230 can be genuinely used for pretty nasty stuff (eg forums for targeted harassment where moderators and management do not participate but do moderate).
  • kats 6y ago
    I don't think startups would really get a boost, because when Youtube, Tumblr or Reddit have put new restrictions on what people can post I didn't see any users leaving for somewhere else. So I would guess that YouTube would have to remove many videos but users would stay there on YouTube.
• ryanmarsh 6y ago
  (5) GOOD FAITH. To restrict access to or availability of specific material “in good faith,” an 16 interactive computer service provider must— 18 (A) have publicly available terms of service or use that state plainly and with particularity the criteria the service provider employs in its content20 moderation practices; This is going to be very interesting for Reddit. Not that I disagree with the text.
• dantheman 6y ago
  This is a terrible law and hopefully will not get passed. Unfortunately, both the left and the right love censorship and control.
• ryanmarsh 6y ago
  “BAD SAMARITAN” CARVE-OUT. Subsection (c)(1) shall not apply in any criminal prosecution under State law or any State or Federal civil action brought against an interactive computer service provider if, at the time of the facts giving rise to the prosecution or action, the service provider acted purposefully with the conscious object to promote, solicit, or facilitate material or activity by another information content provider that the service provider knew or had reason to believe would violate Federal criminal law, if knowingly disseminated or engaged in. Color me surprised this wasn't already in the law.
• _peeley 6y ago
  Just ran into this on Twitter earlier today, seems relevant. Very useful primer on what Section 230 is and clarifications of common misconceptions: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
• IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
  What ever happened to simple stuff like - You go IPO, you lose 230 exemption. - Your revenues reach 2000x the avg US capita, lose 230 exemption. Done This was always meants as a check on online players that had reached monopoly status via network effect. All the ugly stuff (terrorism etc) can and should be dealt the same way NSA ATF FBI etc have been doing since the dawn of the internet. Sect230 should stay clear of that
• ineedasername 6y ago
  Drawing the line on this is one heck of a huge gray area It says providers cannot purposely "turn a blind eye" to potentially illicit traffic, i.e., cannot choose not to track and record such data. Yet any data about individual users and their behavioral patterns has the potential to help reveal illicit activity. Meaning a provider could essentially be required to track everything possible in order to avoid ignoring potential illicit content. Keystrokes? Absolutely they could reveal illicit activity. By deciding not recording them, a provider is turning a blind eye to that possibility.
• shawticus 6y ago
  "Promoting Transparency and Open Discourse First, the draft legislation has a series of reforms to promote transparency and open discourse and ensure that platforms are fairer to the public when removing lawful speech from their services."
• shawticus 6y ago
  "The current interpretations of Section 230 have enabled online platforms to hide behind the immunity to censor lawful speech in bad faith and is inconsistent with their own terms of service. To remedy this, the department’s legislative proposal revises and clarifies the existing language of Section 230 and replaces vague terms that may be used to shield arbitrary content moderation decisions with more concrete language that gives greater guidance to platforms, users, and courts. The legislative proposal also adds language to the definition of “information content provider” to clarify when platforms should be responsible for speech that they affirmatively and substantively contribute to or modify." Can someone competently defend this not being used directly as a tool by Trump to prevent his deeply deeply harmful misinformation about the virus and other things from being censored?
• tlear 6y ago
  This is impressively well put. Section 230 protections should not apply if you censor people for saying things that you were censoring them for saying opposite of 2 month back.
• nph5667 6y ago
  I think the bigger issue with the dominant social/publishing platforms is not a free speech, but their ability to ruin a business without ability of the business to appeal, go to court, sometimes even without a right to find the reason. They are increasingly becoming a marketplace and, as such, they have to be legally forced to keep it transparent and fair. Utility companies cannot turn your electricity off just because some clerk inside PG&E decided that you use this electricity in a way he personally does not like. YouTube, Facebook and Twitter do it many times a day.