3 ms·

Can you say more about how this violates 230? That wasn’t my understanding of how the law works, but I could be wrong.

olivermarks 6y ago
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 'Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish'.
- timdev2 6y ago
  That doesn't explain what "agreements" you think twitter is "breaking". There's a lot of disinformation about 230 floating around, but as the EFF page points out, it's a broad protection. It isn't at all contingent on them behaving like a common carrier.
  - olivermarks 6y ago
    Section 230 has been a political and legal football all year. Example for Twitter editorializing and cancelling https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1804a02d-a015-4b94-ae11-776860154802 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1804a02d-a015... Ammending S230 Bezos/WashPo '...new legislation would target Section 230, a decades-old portion of law that spares social media sites from being held liable for the posts, photos and videos uploaded to their sites by their users. The proposal would pave the way for steep sanctions on major online platforms if they don’t act to remove a range of illicit content, from child exploitation to terrorism, according to Justice Department officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity Wednesday. The agency also seeks to force tech giants to be more transparent about their content-moderation decisions and more consistent in their enforcement of them, according to a report the department released Wednesday. The move might offer the U.S. government a new avenue to probe and punish companies over allegations of political bias'. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/17/doj-barr-section-230/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/17/doj-bar...
    - abhorrence 6y ago
      Twitter's actions prompting legislators to be interested in modifying section 230 is different than Twitter not acting in accordance with section 230. Section 230 explicitly allows them to moderate, and says that they do not lose their protections just because they do some moderation.
- abhorrence 6y ago
  Section 230 also says: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected With that it seems reasonable to read Section 230 as "you don't have to proactively moderate, and any good faith moderation you do doesn't break that protection". Regardless of whether or not this is the right thing for society, it seems that Facebook and Twitter are well within the bounds of section 230 to do some moderation without losing the protection of section 230.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    It seems "Otherwise objectionable" is doing a lot of work in that paragraph. The intent seems pretty clearly "censorship of stuff that violates 1990s era morality is OK". Extrapolating to that to arbitrary censorship of ordinary political views isn't what Congress meant with this clause, and presumably adjusting Section 230 to tighten or simply remove "otherwise objectionable" would mean they could no longer do moderation for political reasons without losing that protection.

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 'Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish'.

timdev2 6y ago
That doesn't explain what "agreements" you think twitter is "breaking". There's a lot of disinformation about 230 floating around, but as the EFF page points out, it's a broad protection. It isn't at all contingent on them behaving like a common carrier.
- olivermarks 6y ago
  Section 230 has been a political and legal football all year. Example for Twitter editorializing and cancelling https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1804a02d-a015-4b94-ae11-776860154802 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1804a02d-a015... Ammending S230 Bezos/WashPo '...new legislation would target Section 230, a decades-old portion of law that spares social media sites from being held liable for the posts, photos and videos uploaded to their sites by their users. The proposal would pave the way for steep sanctions on major online platforms if they don’t act to remove a range of illicit content, from child exploitation to terrorism, according to Justice Department officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity Wednesday. The agency also seeks to force tech giants to be more transparent about their content-moderation decisions and more consistent in their enforcement of them, according to a report the department released Wednesday. The move might offer the U.S. government a new avenue to probe and punish companies over allegations of political bias'. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/17/doj-barr-section-230/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/17/doj-bar...
  - abhorrence 6y ago
    Twitter's actions prompting legislators to be interested in modifying section 230 is different than Twitter not acting in accordance with section 230. Section 230 explicitly allows them to moderate, and says that they do not lose their protections just because they do some moderation.
abhorrence 6y ago
Section 230 also says: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected With that it seems reasonable to read Section 230 as "you don't have to proactively moderate, and any good faith moderation you do doesn't break that protection". Regardless of whether or not this is the right thing for society, it seems that Facebook and Twitter are well within the bounds of section 230 to do some moderation without losing the protection of section 230.
- thu2111 6y ago
  It seems "Otherwise objectionable" is doing a lot of work in that paragraph. The intent seems pretty clearly "censorship of stuff that violates 1990s era morality is OK". Extrapolating to that to arbitrary censorship of ordinary political views isn't what Congress meant with this clause, and presumably adjusting Section 230 to tighten or simply remove "otherwise objectionable" would mean they could no longer do moderation for political reasons without losing that protection.