Big Tech to Potentially Lose Immunity for user created content in US

[Trik'Stari]

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later once the likes of Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. started taking political sides in the day to day communications and goings on of the American peoples.

 

Quote

en. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., is turning up the heat on an issue that is sure to spark outrage in Silicon Valley.

 

Hawley, a tech critic, introduced legislation on Wednesday that would remove the immunity big technology companies receive under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The CDA protects online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Google’s YouTube from liability for the content users post. However, companies will be able to earn immunity from the crackdown if they submit to audits every two years to prove their algorithms and content-removal practices are “politically neutral.”

 

The idea of limiting Section 230 immunity has earned bipartisan support in recent years, as the companies have struggled to keep offensive and illegal content, ranging from terrorist propaganda to foreign-influenced election meddling, off their platforms.

 

Repealing the immunity provision could force these companies to use an editorial system where every piece of user-posted content would have to be vetted for illegal or libelous material before it’s posted, instead relying on algorithms and human checkers to scan it after it was already online and had a chance to spread to millions of people. This would fundamentally alter the business models of companies that depend on huge volumes of user-generated content, including all the big social networks.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/18/sen-hawley-bill-would-revoke-cda-section-230-for-large-tech-companies.html

 

As it stands, these companies are considered service provides similar to telephone companies. Basically, I can go on the phone or Youtube or whatever, and talk shit about someone all I want, and the phone company or Youtube can't be held liable for my actions.

 

There is a lot more to this. There is potentially a way for them to retain immunity, provided they can be audited (every 2 years) and confirmed to be actually remaining politically neutral (as they should be).

My opinion follows:

Spoiler

 

Honestly, I am 100% for this. My opinion is that these companies essentially function as privately owned utilities that provide the ability for the public to view and converse with itself, on a grand scale, that nothing ever has before. I'd liken it to being as big a deal as the invention of the printing press. I believe they absolutely should be required to abide the laws that already exist surrounding Freedom of Speech.

 

I don't care how it affects their bottom line. I don't care if they will lose advertising revenue, the power they stand to wield is too great to go unchallenged and unregulated in some fashion.

 

It's a fair trade. Simply stop trying to use your power over social media to silence the people you don't like and disagree with, and you can keep your immunity and continue doing business as you have. Or you can lose the immunity and watch your business crumble into nothing over lawsuits.

 

Quote

“This bill forces platforms to make an impossible choice: either host reprehensible, but First Amendment protected speech, or lose legal protections that allow them to moderate illegal content like human trafficking and violent extremism. That shouldn’t be a tradeoff,” said Michael Beckerman, president and CEO of the Internet Association.

They would still be completely legally required to do those things, and more than able to do them. Any auditing would reveal "yeah, that's illegal content and had to be taken down".

 

 

 

[DrMacintosh]

You can't sue a national park because you broke your ankle hiking.....you connect the dots....

 

The companies should have to abide by the federal laws of the countries it operates in though. So while I don't think companies should be responsible to things that people do on their platform, their has to be a middle ground that doesn't involve suppressing the speech of everyone. 

 

[Trik'Stari]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

You can't sue a national park because you broke your ankle hiking.....you connect the dots....

 

The companies should have to abide by the federal laws of the countries it operates in though. So while I don't think companies should be responsible to things that people do on their platform, their has to be a middle ground that doesn't involve suppressing the speech of everyone. 

 

Which this defines, as far as I can tell. They submit to auditing to prove that they aren't just silencing people they don't like, and they keep the immunity. Seems fair to me. It's really just asking for non-abusive behavior, and transparency to prove they aren't being abusive.

 

Also, you CAN sue a company (potentially) if you get injured on their property. That's why we have "caution: Wet Floor" signs.

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Also, you CAN sue a company (potentially) if you get injured on their property.

Yes, but I used the national parks as an example. In the US, the state or federal government isn't liable if you fall down the Grand Canyon.

[Curious Pineapple]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Yes, but I used the national parks as an example. In the US, the state or federal government isn't liable if you fall down the Grand Canyon.

Dont think I would be too bothered if I fell down the Grand Canyon, too busy being dead.

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

You can't sue a national park because you broke your ankle hiking.....you connect the dots....

That analogy doesn't work.

 

These companies claim to be platforms, but operate as publishers. That has some serious legal ramifications in the US.

 

Ramifications such as Publishers being able to pick and choose what content they want to host freely, but they are directly legally responsible for any libel/slander and illegal content.

Whereas Platforms must be uniform in moderation, not moderate on basis of political or religious ideology, and in accordance with any laws (so actively trying to remove content that is legitimately illegal, such as calls to violence, direct threats, child porn, non consensual porn, etc.), and are not legally responsible if they do that.

[Sauron]

I'm for this - Youtube and Facebook profit off of user generated content, therefore they are responsible for said content.

 

Maybe there can be some middle ground where creators can self-flag their content as "potentially inflammatory" so Youtube/Facebook won't show ads on it and relinquish any responsibility on the views expressed and work more or less as it does now, taking down videos only if required by law or if they are in violation of some basic terms of service; on the other hand there would be a stricter scrutiny on channels that choose to be monetized.

31 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I don't care how it affects their bottom line. I don't care if they will lose advertising revenue, the power they stand to wield is too great to go unchallenged and unregulated in some fashion.

I agree 100%.

28 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

You can't sue a national park because you broke your ankle hiking.....you connect the dots....

 

The companies should have to abide by the federal laws of the countries it operates in though. So while I don't think companies should be responsible to things that people do on their platform, their has to be a middle ground that doesn't involve suppressing the speech of everyone. 

 

Dunno, every other form of hosting and publishing that makes a profit off of the content it promotes is held responsible for what that content expresses. Why should internet hosting services be any different?

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, Sauron said:

Why should internet hosting services be any different?

I just don’t think it’s reasonable to expect these hosting services to screen everything. It takes incredible amounts of resources. The cost of which is transferred over to the users. 

[Taf the Ghost]

Frankly I think Google should be hit with Anti-Trust and broken up, but this is at least a step in the right direction. Reality is that the big companies have been using global laws to do backdoor regulation of content they don't like. They really only want content that serves their own interests (sells products, pushes politics or narratives that fit the views of the companies), but, YouTube especially, has always made moves to kill off any other potential major video platform.  The end result is that any content that runs afoul of the "connected" gets censored.

 

We're over a decade into the Social Media Age, and it's fairly clear you can't have any discussions that aren't highly constrained on any open platform. Which has always been the reason so much money was poured into the Tech Companies. It's been a very effective way of controlling information & discussion, minus the fact that Internet always seems to find away around the problem. 

 

Granted, banning most Social Media on epidemiological grounds is what I'd do. It's fairly clear it is highly corrosive on society, if not destructive. Weed gets banned for less.

[Arika]

I doubt the big tech companies will agree to this, especially twitter. Pretty sure everyone knows that have a bias CEO and management team, they would rather keep control than have an open platform. 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Arika S said:

I doubt the big tech companies will agree to this, especially twitter. Pretty sure everyone knows that have a bias CEO and management team, they would rather keep control than have an open platform. 

Then they open themselves to significantly more litigation as publishers, for which they are long overdue.

[Arika]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Then they open themselves to significantly more litigation as publishers, for which they are long overdue.

I see no downside to this

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Arika S said:

I see no downside to this

The only downside is that there is no YouTube backup. Otherwise, let them burn in the hellfire they created.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

I just don’t think it’s reasonable to expect these hosting services to screen everything. It takes incredible amounts of resources. The cost of which is transferred over to the users. 

Then maybe the business is unsustainable? We don't need to babysit megacorporations, they don't deserve our pity and they certainly don't deserve custom tailored exceptions. There are plenty of peer to peer or otherwise free (as in freedom) alternatives that just need more users to be a perfectly valid substitute and, since they don't profit off the content, wouldn't be subject to this sort of regulation - if the giants collapse maybe it will be their time to shine. Ever heard of mastodon?

3 minutes ago, Arika S said:

I doubt the big tech companies will agree to this, especially twitter. Pretty sure everyone knows that have a bias CEO and management team, they would rather keep control than have an open platform. 

Sure, in which case they should be held legally responsible for the content they promote.

[Arika]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Sure, in which case they should be held legally responsible for the content they promote

As long as the penalty actually affects them, not just pocket change level fines

[Trik'Stari]

15 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

I just don’t think it’s reasonable to expect these hosting services to screen everything. It takes incredible amounts of resources. The cost of which is transferred over to the users. 

They aren't. They're expected to delete illegal content when they become aware of it.

This bill is basically saying "if you don't stop banning people and deleting content, on the grounds that you (people high up in the company) politically disagree with it, then you will lose your immunity."

13 minutes ago, Arika S said:

I doubt the big tech companies will agree to this, especially twitter. Pretty sure everyone knows that have a bias CEO and management team, they would rather keep control than have an open platform. 

They... don't have to? If it gets enough support, they have no choice.

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

They aren't. They're expected to delete illegal content when they become aware of it.

This bill is basically saying "if you don't stop banning people and deleting content, on the grounds that you (people high up in the company) politically disagree with it, then you will lose your immunity."

Ahhh. Well that isn't too bad I guess. 

[Drak3]

Just now, DrMacintosh said:

Ahhh. Well that isn't too bad I guess. 

Basically, any company that claims to be a platform but acts like a publisher, will either have to act like a platform or be treated like a publisher.

[Guest]

I was listening to the BBC news podcast the other day, and they brought up an interesting point about Libra, the new cryptocurrency by FaceBook - what if your money was not controlled by a bank, and now just corporate entities. They were saying what if you got banned by FaceBook for political ideologies - an idea not too far off, and would certainly not put past FaceBook. No access to money - they have control over the money in that account with their new FaceBook roubles. Banned from using a credit card? It’s a very strange concept.

[BuckGup]

I'm gonna pull a parody law and make Not Youtube and just make a clone of Youtube from 2012 under my company Not Google. Since the joke will be it's what everyone wants and what youtube isn't today

[Trik'Stari]

2 hours ago, floofer said:

I was listening to the BBC news podcast the other day, and they brought up an interesting point about Libra, the new cryptocurrency by FaceBook - what if your money was not controlled by a bank, and now just corporate entities. They were saying what if you got banned by FaceBook for political ideologies - an idea not too far off, and would certainly not put past FaceBook. No access to money - they have control over the money in that account with their new FaceBook roubles. Banned from using a credit card? It’s a very strange concept.

An interesting point. One that I feel illustrates my belief that the major tech companies have grown FAR too large.

 

I'm normally not one that wants government intervention in private lives or companies, but at some point it is necessary. I'll always maintain the belief that government regulation is almost always the worst solution to any given problem.

 

The issue being that sometimes it's the only solution actually likely to succeed.

[handymanshandle]

if social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. wanna determine what political views are on their site. They are a publisher and should be treated as such

[handymanshandle]

7 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

An interesting point. One that I feel illustrates my belief that the major tech companies have grown FAR too large.

 

I'm normally not one that wants government intervention in private lives or companies, but at some point it is necessary. I'll always maintain the belief that government regulation is almost always the worst solution to any given problem.

 

The issue being that sometimes it's the only solution actually likely to succeed.

the idea of social credit is incredibly scary. Imagine going to a store for groceries and finding out your bank or credit card has been cancelled for wrong think.

 

but I agree with what you said

 

Spoiler

 

It's a little political but I hope it's neutral enough to fly under the CS.

 

[Nowak]

4 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later once the likes of Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, etc. started taking political sides in the day to day communications and goings on of the American peoples.

I know the narrative is that these corporations are politically-biased (whichever way depends on who you ask) but the truth is they aren't. They're motivated by what makes them money.

 

Political scandals and controversy just so happens to be a surefire way of making that money, because controversy brings traffic to their site and therefore increases ad revenue.

[Drak3]

16 minutes ago, Nowak said:

I know the narrative is that these corporations are politically-biased (whichever way depends on who you ask) but the truth is they aren't.

The truth is that they are. This legislative action is direct consequence of these publishers taking political sides and claiming to be platforms.

 

And we've seen these companies demonstrate it blatantly.

Youtube's solution to Gay Wonk's slander against Steven Crowder (Youtube literally says that Crowder does not violate terms), and the whole ordeal that is the VoxAdpocalypse.

Twitter's banning of """hate speech""" from independent and conservative users, yet legitimate calls to violence and speech in violation of Twitter's ToS are ignored if they come from leftists with any prominence. One of those calls to violence being Gay Wonk's call to "milkshake" political dissenters and make them ashamed to gather in public (which, BTW, someone actually was assaulted in this exact manner. Long story short, throwing a milkshake at someone is battery at best).