Section 230 - Safe Harbor - Social Media Executive Political Theatre Order

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 8740
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Section 230 - Safe Harbor - Social Media Executive Political Theatre Order

#76

Post by RoadScholar »

Mikedunford wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 9:18 pm
I respectfully dissent.

Legally, it's toothless. Politically, provision after provision are timed to provide additional talking points through the election runup. The intent is both to stir the base and to ensure that the social media companies don't push back on outrageous claims.
Indeed. Even "political theatre" has a script and an audience.
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 11058
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Section 230 - Safe Harbor - Social Media Executive Political Theatre Order

#77

Post by Chilidog »

I'm curious about one thing.

How does this EO play out against the Net Nuetrality debate?

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10553
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Section 230 - Safe Harbor - Social Media Executive Political Theatre Order

#78

Post by Mikedunford »

Oh, the position being staked out on 230 is absolutely and completely inconsistent with their position on net neutrality.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 11058
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Section 230 - Safe Harbor - Social Media Executive Political Theatre Order

#79

Post by Chilidog »

Mikedunford wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 12:14 pm
Oh, the position being staked out on 230 is absolutely and completely inconsistent with their position on net neutrality.
Yeah, that's what I thought.

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 2048
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Section 230 - Safe Harbor - Social Media Executive Political Theatre Order

#80

Post by neeneko »

Mikedunford wrote:
Fri May 29, 2020 12:14 pm
Oh, the position being staked out on 230 is absolutely and completely inconsistent with their position on net neutrality.
Telecoms have a lobby that platform companies could only dream of.

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 16434
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: Section 230 - Safe Harbor - Social Media Executive Political Theatre Order

#81

Post by kate520 »

Politically, provision after provision are timed to provide additional talking points through the election runup. The intent is both to stir the base and to ensure that the social media companies don't push back on outrageous claims.
Seems to me their timing is off, that there’s too much time until the election for them to control the narrative. @jack already pushed back and trump caved.
DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 29308
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Section 230 - Safe Harbor - Social Media Executive Political Theatre Order

#82

Post by Volkonski »

Satirical sites test Facebook's free speech policy with fake headlines about Zuckerberg

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-f ... d=89730175
Satirical sites like The Onion, The Shovel and The Chaser posted fake headlines about Zuckerberg himself, which are still up on their Facebook pages. Some of the headlines accuse him of absurd and clearly fabricated behavior, illegal conduct, or even claim he died from coronavirus — which is false. While these posts could be seen as misinformation, they also make a serious point about the role and responsibilities of social media platforms in today's troubled world.

Zuckerberg has faced criticism for not doing enough to rein in the rampant spread of misinformation on Facebook, and he defended his stance this week after Twitter shifted gears and slapped a fact-check label on a tweet by President Trump.

:snippity:

While Twitter announced this month that it will begin to label tweets with disputed or misleading information — including ones from Mr. Trump — Facebook's policy on misinformation differs.

Following the 2016 election, Facebook received widespread criticism for enabling the spread of misinformation. Last year, the company announced it was taking new steps to respond, including monitoring groups that spread fake information and adding expert fact-checkers from outside the company.
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28925
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Section 230 - Safe Harbor - Social Media Executive Political Theatre Order

#83

Post by bob »

Center for Democracy and Technology: CDT Suit Challenges President’s Executive Order Targeting First Amendment Protected Speech:
Today, the Center for Democracy & Technology filed a lawsuit against President Trump’s “Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship,” signed May 28, 2020. The suit argues that the Executive Order violates the First Amendment by curtailing and chilling the constitutionally protected speech of online platforms and individuals.

* * *

The law firm of Mayer Brown is representing CDT in this action.
The complaint, filed in D.D.C., alleges a single count of "Ultra Vires Action in Violation of the First Amendment."

TBH, this is a touch too Klayman-esque. (At least there's no prayer for eleventy gazillion dollars.)
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14009
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Section 230 - Safe Harbor - Social Media Executive Political Theatre Order

#84

Post by Notorial Dissent »

I guess they win the prize for first in line.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 12166
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: #StuggersForBiden "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Re: Section 230 - Safe Harbor - Social Media Executive Political Theatre Order

#85

Post by Orlylicious »

Today's announcements that Google Ads demonetized Zero Hedge (which is especially funny since Twitter just let him back on after 4 months) and threatening Federalist because of "comment posting" is what will happen if they keep messing around with 230.

Meanwhile,
Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook will allow users to turn off political ads
PUBLISHED TUE, JUN 16 2020 10:00 PM EDT Salvador Rodriguez @SAL19
KEY POINTS
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday announced the social network will allow its users to turn off seeing political ads.
Zuckerberg did not say when this feature will roll out.
For months, Facebook has endured criticism for its policy that allows politicians to run political ads containing false information on its services.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday announced the social network will allow its users to turn off seeing political ads. “For those of you who’ve already made up your minds and just want the election to be over, we hear you — so we’re also introducing the ability to turn off seeing political ads,” Zuckerberg wrote in an op-ed published on USA Today. “We’ll still remind you to vote.” For months, Facebook has endured criticism for its policy that allows politicians to run political ads containing false information on its services. The policy has been criticized by activists and by presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Rival Twitter, by contrast, banned political ads in October 2019.

Users will be able to turn off political, electoral and social issue ads from political candidates, Super PACs and “other organizations that have the ‘Paid for by’ political disclaimer on them,” the company told CNBC. The company will start rolling this feature out to some users on Wednesday, and it will become available to all U.S. users over the next few weeks, Facebook said. The company aims to expand the feature to more countries where it has enforcement on political ads this fall. When users come across one of these ads, there will be an option within the ad to turn off all future political ads. Users can also head to the settings features of Facebook and Instagram to turn them off. In addition, users who have decided to turn these ads off can report any ads they come across that they believe should not have been shown to them.

Zuckerberg also announced Facebook intends to help 4 million people register to vote through a new Voting Information Center that the company will roll out. Zuckerberg had previously announced the Voting Information Center earlier this month. The Voting Information Center will be shown at the top of Facebook’s News Feed and Instagram, Zuckerberg said. The center will include information about how and when to vote, how to register, how to vote by mail and how to vote early. The center will also include posts from state election officials and local election authorities, Zuckerberg said. “I believe Facebook has a responsibility not just to prevent voter suppression — which disproportionately targets people of color — but to actively support well-informed voter engagement, registration, and turnout,” he wrote.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/17/faceboo ... rberg.html

This should be fun.
Hey! Don't miss The Fogbow's Favourite TV Show™ starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: Family Crisis!" TVShowsAce featured Fogbow's love 5/26/20: https://bit.ly/2TNxrbS

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28925
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Section 230 - Safe Harbor - Social Media Executive Political Theatre Order

#86

Post by bob »

Reuters: U.S. Justice Department proposes rolling back protections for big tech:
The U.S. Justice Department proposed on Wednesday that Congress take up legislation to curb protections that big tech platforms like Alphabet’s (GOOGL.O) Google and Facebook (FB.O) have had for decades, a senior official said, following through on U.S. President Donald Trump’s bid to crack down on tech giants.

The goal of the proposal, which is being finalized, is to push tech companies to address criminal content on their platforms and boost transparency for users when the outlets take down lawful material, the senior Justice Department official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. But to become law, U.S. lawmakers would need to propose and approve legislation based on the department’s recommendations.

* * *

The White House welcomed news of the Justice Department proposal. “The president expressly called on DOJ to develop such model legislation in the Executive Order signed recently, and yes, President Trump is pleased to see the department following through,” said White House spokesman Judd Deere.

* * *

Also on Wednesday, Senator Josh Hawley joined with three other Republicans to introduce a bill that would allow people to sue tech companies if they feel that their speech has been censored.
More theater designed to impress those who confuse motion for action.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28925
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Section 230 - Safe Harbor - Social Media Executive Political Theatre Order

#87

Post by bob »

Mikedunford wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 9:18 pm
I respectfully dissent.

Legally, it's toothless. Politically, provision after provision are timed to provide additional talking points through the election runup. The intent is both to stir the base and to ensure that the social media companies don't push back on outrageous claims.
Nat'l L. Rev.: Commerce Dept. Petitions FCC to Issue Rules Clarifying CDA Section 230:
The currents around the Communications Decency Act just got a little more turbulent as the White House and executive branch try to reel in the big fish of CDA reform.

On July 27, 2020, the Commerce Department submitted a petition requesting the FCC initiate a rulemaking to clarify the provisions of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Unrelated, but part of the same fervor in Washington to “rein in social media,” the leaders of the major technology companies appeared before the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee at a hearing yesterday, July 29, 2020, to discuss the Committee’s ongoing investigation of competition in the digital marketplace, where some members inquired about content moderation practices. Moreover, last month, a pair of Senators introduced the PACT Act, a targeted (but still substantial) update to the CDA (and other CDA reform bills are also being debated, including a bill to carve out sexually exploitative material involving children from the CDA`s reach).

* * *

While a deep dive in the 57-page Commerce Department petition (or whether the FCC even has the legal authority to issue such rules in this area) is beyond the scope of this post, its reform proposals can be broken down into several areas. In brief, the Commerce Dept. has asked to FCC to:

* Clarify the relationship between the more well-known §230(c)(1) “publisher” immunity for hosting third-party content and the lesser-utilized §230(c)(2) “Good Samaritan” immunity for filtering of objectionable content, lest they be read and applied in a manner that renders §230(c)(2) superfluous.

* Amend the statute to specify that §230(c)(1) has no application to any provider`s decision to restrict access to content or terminate user accounts.

* Provide clearer guidance on what content would be deemed “objectionable content” within §230(c)(2) and when removals are done in “good faith” (including proposing that filtering decision taken contrary to terms of service or without an adequate notice or process should fall outside the CDA).

* Modify the language that defines under what circumstances a provider becomes an “information content provider” as per 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3) (“responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information”), and clarify when a provider`s content moderation practices take it outside of the protections of the CDA. The proposal requests that such providers should lose CDA protection when, for example, they make editorial decision that modify or alter content, “including but not limited to substantively contributing to, commenting upon, editorializing about, or presenting with a discernible viewpoint content provided by another information content provider.”

* Mandate disclosure for internet transparency similar to that required of other internet companies, such as ISPs.

Taken as a whole, is this petition simply more wishful thinking? Might this petition be another prod to Congress to pass some sort of CDA reform? Do many of such petition`s proscriptions run contrary to the First Amendment? If any rules are issued, will court challenges block their immediate implementation?
(1) Yes (it is also political theater); (2) Yes (but not a successful one); (3) Yes (feature not a bug); (4) Yes (and "if" is doing all the work there).

"For completeness": USDOC's letter to Santa letter to Penthouse FCC petition.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28925
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Section 230 - Safe Harbor - Social Media Executive Political Theatre Order

#88

Post by bob »

Tech Dirt: Days After FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly Suggests Trump's Section 230 Exec Order Is Unconstitutional... His Renomination To The FCC Is Withdrawn:
Earlier today we wrote about how Ajit Pai was pushing ahead with the Commerce Department's silly FCC petition regarding a re-interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. We noted that it wouldn't actually be that hard to just say that the whole thing is unconstitutional and outside of the FCC's authority (which it is). Some people have pushed back on us saying that if Pai didn't do this, Trump would fire him and promote some Trump stan to push through whatever unconstitutional nonsense is wanted.

Well, now at least there's some evidence to suggest that Trump also views the FCC -- a supposedly "independent" agency -- as his personal speech police. Of the Republican Commissioners, Brendan Carr has been quite vocal in his Trump boot-licking, especially with regards to Section 230. He's been almost gleeful in his pronouncements about how evil "big tech" is for "censoring conservatives," and how much he wants to chip away at Section 230. Pai has been pretty much silent on the issue until the announcement today. But the other Republican Commissioner, Mike O'Rielly, has at least suggested that he recognizes the Trump executive order is garbage. Six weeks ago he said he hadn't done his homework yet, but suggested he didn't think Congress had given the FCC any authority on this matter (he's right).

Just last week, during a speech, he made it pretty clear where he stood on this issue. . . .

And then, today, it was announced that the White House is pulling his renomination to the FCC. In other words, the White House is being a petty asshole, again, and firing anyone for not being in lockstep with the President's ridiculous unconstitutional whims.

There was some talk last week about how Senator James Inhofe's office was blocking O'Rielly's renomination over a different issue: the approval of L-Band spectrum for use by Ligado (formerly LightSquared). A variety of government organizations had opposed the use of this spectrum, fearing that it might interfere with GPS systems. However, the Ligado deal was unanimously approved by all five commissioners, so it's difficult to see why O'Rielly would be singled out, other than his nomination was up. The Inhofe/Ligado thing feels like a smokescreen for the 230 issue.

The question now is whether or not O'Rielly will serve out his term, or if he'll leave now that his renomination is not being considered. One hopes that he'll at least stick it out long enough to vote down the Petition on 230. Even if he did leave, it's unclear if a new Commissioner would get through any confirmation process prior to the election. Either way, at least it's nice to see one Republican Commissioner willing to stand up to Trump.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Computers & Internet”