U.S. Senators propose limiting liability shield for social media platforms [“limit” Section 230 versus repeal]

Reuters ^ | February 5, 2021 11:22 AM | Nandita Bose and Chris Sanders

[Olog-hai]

Three Democratic U.S. senators introduced a bill that would limit Section 230, a law that shields online companies from liability over content posted by users, and make the companies more accountable when posts result in harm.

Called the SAFE TECH Act, the bill would mark the latest effort to make social media companies like Alphabet Inc’s Google, Twitter Inc and Facebook Inc more accountable for “enabling cyber-stalking, targeted harassment, and discrimination on their platforms,” Senators Mark Warner, Mazie Hirono and Amy Klobuchar said in a statement.

In the wake of the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, lawmakers have been studying ways to hold Big Tech more accountable for the role they played in the spread of disinformation before the riot and about policing content on their platforms. …

[Lurkinanloomin]

This is to punish companies that don’t punish conservatives.

[z3n]

Notice how they only (partially) fix this in order to put continued pressure on big tech to censor even more?

They don’t actually address the issue of unfair censorship or the fact that big tech has been getting best of both worlds, which is protection from liability for content what is published, yet editorial control (and censorship) over what is published.

So congress only makes the move that limits people’s speech. It doesn’t make the move that limits the breadth of reach and power that big tech has.

[glasseye]

So we are going to codify suppression of ‘wrongthink’?
Republicans did nothing when they had the chance and I am supposed to believe democrats will protect my rights online?
Cue Graham & Lee matching out to tell us how this is ‘the best they could do’...
I’m just glad I have no children.

[dead]

[Leaning Right]

> This is to punish companies that don’t punish conservatives. <

And it will encourage companies that already punish conservatives to punish them even more.

“Hey pal, that comment you made about President Biden being bad for America...that sounds like you want harm to come to our beloved leader. You’ve just earned yourself a lifetime ban.”

[ConservativeDude]

methinks we never should’ve gone down the s 233 road at all

they should’ve just been publishers

sure that would’ve slowed things down, but ....that would’ve been desirable

and as editorial stances became apparent, more competitors would’ve become alternative publishers

[Wayne07]

Section 230 currently protects Free Republic from being liable for the content of posts by users. Be vary wary of changes that don’t affect the big leftist mega-corps like Twitter and Facebook, but would allow smaller sites to be sued out of existence by activists.

[falcon99]

Anything that Mark Warner, Mazie Hirono and Amy Klobuchar say is the reason for their bill, you can believe it is just the opposite. None of these three have any ethics, honesty or character.

[newfreep]

In the wake of the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol in Washington,

al-reuters conveniently omitted...

...by BLM/ANTIFA terrorists...

[z3n]

That is why the correct and moral leglislation to pass is one that gives places like FR (and even facebook and twitter) the right to declare themselves a PLATFORM or a SERVICE PROVIDER. This will give them continued protections from liability and no need to constrain content (with a few public safety exceptions). Anyone who declares themselves as publishers can censor all they want, but they’re on the line for what gets published.

[Olog-hai]

Didn’t protect Parler from being de-platformed.

[taxcontrol]

Should be a binary operation. Either you:

1) censor your users content and are therefore responsible for the content that you allow

-or-

2) you don’t censor and you are not responsible for the content

[z3n]

Deplatforming is censorship against a business, and it should still be discrimination and a violation of civil rights, just like censoring an individual should be.

[z3n]

Should be a binary operation. Either you:

1) censor your users content and are therefore responsible for the content that you allow

-or-

2) you don’t censor and you are not responsible for the content

~~~

That is correct but any new law needs to strictly where the liabilities and responsibilities lie.

1) a publisher can censor users and exert editorial control, but is liabile for their content

2) a platform is not liable for content or communication, but they may not restrain content (except when it overtly threatens public safety).

Legislation like this would protect people's (and businesses) rights to free speech as well as protect people's rights to pursue civil action against those who would libel, slander, or were harmed. It would take away the ridiculous best of both worlds fantasy-land that social media currently gets.

[EinNYC]

Traitorous scum.

[Wayne07]

Section 230 protects Parler from being sued for the content on their site, it has nothing to do with being deplatformed.

[Olog-hai]

FWICS, the liability section is not specific to lawsuits. AWS held them responsible for (supposed) content that they didn’t even specify, to boot.

[lepton]

So, this summary sounds like it is going in precisely the wrong direction.

[Olog-hai]

Exactly as the left would plan, of course.