Battle for Section 230 - The Situation Monitoring Thread for Monitoring the Situation of the Situation Monitor's Situation Monitoring

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
View attachment 1585595View attachment 1585596View attachment 1585597View attachment 1585598

1) I believe Section 230 is clandestine to be fucked with.
2) I believe the Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act, as it has been introduced to the Senate, is the best bill we can hope for.
Replacing "considers to be" with "has an objectively reasonable belief" and "otherwise objectionable" with "promoting self harm, promoting terrorism, or unlawful" seems to be doing away with vague nonsense for some actual substance. Only worrisome part is the "terrorism" one. there are enough people in this world who see any opposition as terrorists.

Either way I have difficulty spotting a reason why this bill wouldn't be a improvement to the current horseshit.
 
Either way I have difficulty spotting a reason why this bill wouldn't be a improvement to the current horseshit.
Easy. None of it is enforced until you get to the "terrorist" bit then it's immediately enforced against all dissadents they personally don't like (who are conviently radicalizing into terrorists anyway).
 
It's 4PM, time for your monthly episode of Barr REEEEing at the internet. I haven't had the time to read through everything the DoJ has released about this, but the most interesting part in the 2nd link is the DoJ saying they're going to overrule the Stratton Oakmont vs Prodigy decision

As soon as the dems take control they'll just straight up revoke 230.
Unlike noble Republicans like Trump and Barr who are uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 
Last edited:
Spotted a redlined draft of their proposed changes. Very interesting.

Adding their press release webpage for completeness.

The Justice Department Unveils Proposed Section 230 Legislation on Behalf of the Administration



Today, on behalf of the Trump Administration, the Department of Justice sent draft legislation to Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The draft legislative text implements reforms that the Department of Justice deemed necessary in its June Recommendations and follows a yearlong review of the outdated statute. The legislation also executes President Trump’s directive from the Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship.

“For too long Section 230 has provided a shield for online platforms to operate with impunity,” said Attorney General William P. Barr. “Ensuring that the internet is a safe, but also vibrant, open and competitive environment is vitally important to America. 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.”

“The Department’s proposal is an important step in reforming Section 230 to further its original goal: providing liability protection to encourage good behavior online,” said Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen. “The proposal makes clear that, when interactive computer services willfully distribute illegal material or moderate content in bad faith, Section 230 should not shield them from the consequences of their actions.”

The Department of Justice is grateful to all the experts, victims’ groups, academics, businesses, and other stakeholders that have and continue to engage closely with the department during this process. The draft legislation reflects important and helpful feedback received thus far. The department is also grateful to our colleagues in Congress for their support on Section 230 reform and looks forward to continued engagement moving forward.

The Department of Justice’s draft legislation focuses on two areas of reform, both of which are, at minimum, necessary to recalibrate the outdated immunity of Section 230.

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.

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.

Addressing Illicit Activity Online

The second category of amendments 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 claims.

Section 230 immunity is meant to incentivize and protect online Good Samaritans. Platforms that purposely solicit and facilitate harmful criminal activity — in effect, online Bad Samaritans — should not receive the benefit of this immunity. Nor should a platform receive blanket immunity for continuing to host known criminal content on its services, despite repeated pleas from victims to take action.

The department also proposes to more clearly carve out federal civil enforcement actions from Section 230. Although federal criminal prosecutions have always been outside the scope of Section 230 immunity, online crime is a serious and growing problem, and there is no justification for blocking the federal government from civil enforcement on behalf of American citizens.

Finally, the department proposes carving out certain categories of civil claims that are far outside Section 230’s core objective, including offenses involving child sexual abuse, terrorism, and cyberstalking. These amendments, working together, will be critical first steps in enabling victims to seek redress for the most serious of online crimes.

The Justice Department’s proposals are available here.

-------------
I'm assuming it's okay to add complete documents from other websites outside of A&N if it's a government press release. Apologies if this has to get removed.
 
So this still has to pass both houses right? Does it still get to go through committees where it will hopefully get ripped apart and watered down into some kind of mush and it will repeal Section 230 but have no teeth to it? Or do Dems hate Trump so much on principle they will vote against anything he proposes?
 
So this still has to pass both houses right? Does it still get to go through committees where it will hopefully get ripped apart and watered down into some kind of mush and it will repeal Section 230 but have no teeth to it? Or do Dems hate Trump so much on principle they will vote against anything he proposes?
most likely yes has go to senate, house so dead bill till next election ball just rolling unless Justice & sureme court says it goes through their office because i believe this just a rule alterration & enforcement & not bill . UNTIL, someone shake house & senate to see if it has to go by them or lawsuit happeneds to say its not constustional(it can still do damage before it goes to court).
 
Doesn't it take into account current cyber stalking laws, essentially grandfathering the farms in?
I don't know honestly, I am not an expert in current cyber stalking laws afterall, my mind is just going back to the whole shitstorm when Null kept that New Zealand manifesto uploaded and later the warrent canary went away for a week. I think that is the exact sort of thing that could get @Null in serious trouble with this change.

I guess I'm inclined to say no, if only because the Federal Government has a history of using... "expanded" interpertations of what the law says they can do.
 
Last edited:
If this passes expect the DoJ to come along a year or two from now moaning over antiquated cyberstalking and terrorism laws that tie the hands of honest law enforcement and oh won't America just make a few minor changes for the children's sake.
 
I don't know honestly, I am not an expert in current cyber stalking laws afterall, ...

I guess I'm inclined to say no, if only because the Federal Government has a history of using... "expanded" interpertations of what the law says they can do.

The redline does state:

NO EFFECT ON CYBER-STALKING LAWS. Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to prevent, impair, or limit any civil action relating to harm suffered from conduct that would constitute a violation of 20 section 2261A(2) of title 18, United States Code.

Other than that, there isn't much mention of cyberstalking at all.

IANAL but there really isn't much of anything that affects the farms at all. The redline is primarily about moderating speech to the letter of its TOS, rather than the user-prosted publicly available information which is all the farms does.
 
I have to say, I'm leery about the "promoting terrorism or violent extremism" and "promoting self-harm" additions. The former because, as others have said, there are some people who will label anything that disagrees with them as terrorism or violence. And the latter because manipulative assholes already love using that tactic to smear their enemies. ("Look what you made me do!")

Glad to see the good faith section clarified, though.
 
Why should websites get special exceptions to the law nobody else does? Why not just extend it to all companies. Nobody is responsible for anything they say.

Is there a reason to have slander and libel laws? Should unaccountable giant corporations just be allowed to lie about whoever they don't like and ruin their reputation without penalty?
 
I have to say, I'm leery about the "promoting terrorism or violent extremism" and "promoting self-harm" additions.

Kill yourself.

I just broke the new law. These cunts are trying to make Twitter TOS the law of the land.
 
Back
Top Bottom