(also regards to online censorship)
“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.”
Nice!
I’d like to see a requirement that every major platform such as Facebook, Twitter or Google that removes and censors be required to explain in detail to the “violator” exactly what terms or rules were violated, and if these rules are enforced uniformly based on politics. The impetus needs to be promoting open speech and opinion censored only by spam, porn, or threats of violence.
Unfortunately it won’t pass Congress.
Not even if the Pubbies take over.
Too many of them on the take from Silicon Valley unfortunately.
There is absolutely no doubt that the major social media companies have been acting as publishers for years now, and given statements, particularly by Alphabet and Google officers, they need to be brought up on “in-kind advertising” charges for illegal contributions in the hundreds of millions of dollars by the FEC.
Mark
Ping
Facebook, google, twitter need to be broken up