Leaked Draft Shows potential Internet Censorship in the US.

[AlexOak]

Due to the nature of this topic, the mods have free reign over this thread and can close it at any time they feel it's getting out of hand. 

Quote

Civil liberties groups are warning of a major threat to online freedoms and First Amendment rights if a leaked draft of a Trump administration edict—dubbed by critics as a "Censor the Internet" executive order that would give powerful federal agencies far-reaching powers to pick and choose which kind of Internet material is and is not acceptable—is allowed to go into effect.

 

According to CNN, which obtained a copy of the draft, the new rule "calls for the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms. Although still in its early stages and subject to change, the Trump administration's draft order also calls for the Federal Trade Commission to take those new policies into account when it investigates or files lawsuits against misbehaving companies."

 

While Politico was the first to report how the draft was being circulated by the White House, CNN notes that if put into effect, "the order would reflect a significant escalation by President Trump in his frequent attacks against social media companies over an alleged but unproven systemic bias against conservatives by technology platforms. And it could lead to a significant reinterpretation of a law that, its authors have insisted, was meant to give tech companies broad freedom to handle content as they see fit." -Common Dreams Article

This triggers some may alarms. As private companies and all that makes the internet will be affected anyone with power.

 

Section 230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 

Quote

(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:

(1)

The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.

(2)

These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.

(3)

The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

(4)

The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.

(5)

Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

(b)PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—

(1)

to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;

(2)

to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;

(3)

to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;

(4)

to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and

(5)

to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)

any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)

any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

(d)Obligations of interactive computer service

A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

(e)Effect on other laws

(1)No effect on criminal law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.

(2)No effect on intellectual property law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.

(3)State law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

(4)No effect on communications privacy law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.

(5)No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—

(A)

any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;

(B)

any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or

(C)

any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.

(f)DefinitionsAs used in this section:

(1)Internet

The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.

(2)Interactive computer service

The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

(3)Information content provider

The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

(4)Access software providerThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:

(A)

filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;

(B)

pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or

(C)

transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

^This here is what protects you and me, from posting anything we want that is legal and sane of course. But this could go away if its added later on in this leaked draft.

 

Opinion:

This spells massive breach to one's freedom to do anything on the internet without being subjected to regulation that any administration could impose. This could also change how we view and interact in the internet. 

 

Sources: 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/11/leaked-draft-trump-executive-order-censor-internet-denounced-dangerous

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/tech/white-house-social-media-executive-order-fcc-ftc/index.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/white-house-tech-censorship-1639051 (First to report about it)

[elfensky]

I think the past few years have clearly shown a trend in the developed western world towards censorship (of the internet), and I feel it's only going to get worse as they try to pass such bills in more hidden and insidious ways. Be it in the name of copyright, safety or something else.
Both, the US and the EU have shown this with SOPA, PIPA & ACTA, and as the leaders get older and more disconnected from modern technology it's only going to get worse.

(somewhat off-topic: lobbying is such a cancer on society is should be illegal. I wonder what would happen if the internet community got together, gathered money and did some lobbying of their own)
 

Now the narrative on violence is back to video games, and given Cloudflare's reaction to 8chan, I wouldn't be surprised if large internet platforms such as reddit will be next.
Hell, the big social platforms such as facebook, youtube and twitter already do it, deleting, shadowbanning and otherwise removing radical, racist and otherwise "bad" content.
And while in some ways I can agree to it (especially given the prospencity of such content to affect minors) (and I hate myself for using the "oh but think of the children argument", it's as usual a trade off between liberty and security.

 

 

 

[PlayStation 2]

Patriot Act 2.0 is here and the Neocons are back to push it because god forbid they blame anything else but the internet and video games.

[BuckGup]

Social media companies already do this and so do ISPs and corporations. Cloudflare and 8chan is a great example that just happened

[SolarNova]

Last i heard Trump was trying to stop certain large media sites from being agenda driven and biased. Youtube for example. So was going to introduce a bill to hold such companies accountable for censoring content that should otherwise not be censored.

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

So was going to introduce a bill to hold such companies accountable for censoring content that should otherwise not be censored.

That's what it is. It's being smeared as censorship now.

[Guest]

The milicia has arrived! The thread will be locked in... 3.

[poochyena]

26 minutes ago, ElfenSky said:

past few years have clearly shown a trend in the developed western world towards censorship

past few years? Its been happening since the very start of the internet

[Fnige]

13 minutes ago, Cora_Lie said:

The milicia has arrived! The thread will be locked in... 3.

Nobody say the next number till an political argument starts

 

then the mods can say 1

[Guest]

1 minute ago, SlimyPython said:

Nobody say the next number till an political argument starts

 

then the mods can say 1

You read my mind

[Sauron]

24 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

Last i heard Trump was trying to stop certain large media sites from being agenda driven and biased. Youtube for example. So was going to introduce a bill to hold such companies accountable for censoring content that should otherwise not be censored.

That's government control of the internet, AKA actual censorship. And remember that if these companies are "held accountable" for what they take down they will also be held accountable for what they put up.

 

20 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

That's what it is. It's being smeared as censorship now.

It's censorship by definition my dear. I know you people have been whining about "censorship" on twitter or youtube but while that is just a bunch of businesses acting upon their right not to host any given content, this would be the government deciding what is and isn't allowed to be on the internet, which is what censorship actually is.

4 minutes ago, SlimyPython said:

Nobody say the next number till an political argument starts

2

[Guest]

Truth to be said, ever since Ajit Pai came into office, and he orchestrated the death and burial of Net Neutrality, it was open doors to this kind of project.

I've been waiting to see WHEN it would be drafted and what they would use as an excuse.

 

And if it passes, you're all in deep s*** and all the rest of the world too...

[ARikozuM]

2

 

This was bound to happen. That is why I've been saying that we need the internet to be a public square. No Patriot Act, no NSA/FBI bullshit, just basic human rights to freedom. 

[Flying Sausages]

Corrupted government and media have too much power in their hands. 

[Blademaster91]

40 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

Last i heard Trump was trying to stop certain large media sites from being agenda driven and biased. Youtube for example. So was going to introduce a bill to hold such companies accountable for censoring content that should otherwise not be censored.

If this is the case, then i'd be fine with social media companies being held accountable for censorship, though i'm not surprised mainstream media is spinning it as an attack on social media.

[Fnige]

17 minutes ago, Sauron said:

2

[Drak3]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/white-house-tech-censorship-1639051

 

This is the initial article of OP's sources. It doesn't present us with this supposed draft.

The other sources ultimately lead back to it as well.

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

f this is the case, then i'd be fine with social media companies being held accountable for censorship, though i'm not surprised mainstream media is spinning it as an attack on social media.

It very likely is. It's the logical outcome of Trump's press conference and the anti-trust hearings over the matter.

 

We're already seeing some people smearing it as censorship in of itself, either with ignorance or malicious intent. These companies in question are not free to pursue their political censorship and reap the benefits of legislation that is there to protect neutral platforms.

[Guest]

Off Topic

Spoiler

Frankly I would love to know how "political subject" is defined on this forum.

Didn't find anything anywhere, but perhaps my godly skills of retrieving information just left me hanging by the tip of the small finger this time

 

[Flying Sausages]

5 minutes ago, SlimyPython said:

[seon123]

1 minute ago, Cora_Lie said:

Frankly I would love to know how "political subject" is defined on this forum.

Didn't find anything anywhere, but perhaps my godly skills of retrieving information just left me hanging by the tip of the small finger this time 

Spoiler

Quote

No trolling or flame-bait.

• This includes topics such as AMD vs NVIDIA, "company X sucks", and political or religious debates.

 

[Taf the Ghost]

Eh, CNN's article is pretty much a "Protect Google & Facebook Revenue at ALL COSTS!" piece. Because, for them, that's all that matters. And, since no actual text from the piece is provided, you're really falling pretty hard for Spin.

 

Reality is that all of the big Social Media companies abuse Section 230 like it's going out of style. If you fall afoul of the Big City, Coastal, Corporate, Progressive political alignment of the platforms, you're days are numbered.  (The alignment is very narrow and it's pretty much only a small faction of San Fran, LA, NYC and DC that share it, but they control the Social Media companies. Even if you fit 3 of the 4, you're going to get dropped from the platforms if you run afoul of the 4th alignment.) They already act like Publishers but want to be treated as Platforms. 

 

Algos are coded by their Staff under direction from Management. Their actions reflect the company. They had their chance and abused it. They're Publishers and thus liable for it.

 

(Also, the court cases around Backpage more or less ended Section 230 in Federal Circuit Courts, so it's pretty much dead already.)

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/white-house-tech-censorship-1639051

 

This is the initial article of OP's sources. It doesn't present us with this supposed draft.

The other sources ultimately lead back to it as well.

It very likely is. It's the logical outcome of Trump's press conference and the anti-trust hearings over the matter. 

No... The logical outcome of said press conference is yet to happen... I invite you to listen again to cited press conference, especially the part announcing a future project implying the media companies, the states and the federal authority.

Quote

We're already seeing some people smearing it as censorship in of itself, either with ignorance or malicious intent. These companies in question are not free to pursue their political censorship and reap the benefits of legislation that is there to protect neutral platforms.

Do you have proof?

[Taf the Ghost]

13 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

If this is the case, then i'd be fine with social media companies being held accountable for censorship, though i'm not surprised mainstream media is spinning it as an attack on social media.

It's an attack on their Revenue, so major Media is going to lie through their teeth about it. It'd be like banning CNN from airports. No one would watch it then.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, seon123 said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Spoiler

That is not defining what is considered a "political or religious debate".

 

[Flying Sausages]

1 minute ago, Cora_Lie said:

  Hide contents

That is not defining what is considered a "political or religious debate".

  

This thread is going to get locked very fast.