DoJ asks Congress to limit protections for social media companies

[ThinkingSapien]

DoJ asks Congress to limit protections for social media companies

The Department of Justice (DoJ) is asking Congress to adopt a new law that would make Facebook, Google and Twitter liable for the way they moderate content, The Washington Post reports. The legislation would alter the controversial Section 230 so that tech companies would be accountable when...

www.engadget.com

DoJ asks Congress to limit protections for social media companies​

Attorney General William Barr speaks out against Section 230.​

The Department of Justice (DoJ) is asking Congress to adopt a new law that would make Facebook, Google and Twitter liable for the way they moderate content, The Washington Post reports. The legislation would alter the controversial Section 230 so that tech companies would be accountable when they “unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online.”

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

Politicians have been poking at Section 230 for months. The DoJ doesn’t typically weigh in on legislation, but now, Barr is asking Congress to roll back critical aspects of Section 230. Not only is that unusual, it could add to speculation that some politicians are attempting to “bully tech companies into political submission,” as Senator Brian Schatz previously put it.

Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have been looking for ways to alter Section 230 and better regulate Big Tech in general. But President Trump also seems to have a personal vendetta against social media platforms. In addition to accusing Facebook and Twitter of having an anti-conservative bias, Trump criticized Twitter after it flagged and hid one of his tweets “for making misleading health claims that could potentially dissuade people from participation in voting.” Earlier this year, shortly after Twitter hid another Trump tweet for glorifying violence, the President signed an executive order targeting social media platforms.

It’s unclear what the future holds for Section 230, but with a push from Barr and the DoJ, reform could arrive sooner rather than later.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/09/23/trump-doj-censorship-section-230/

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The Trump administration’s moves are likely to inflame tensions between Trump and the tech industry in a heated election year. Trump has continued to ratchet up his attacks, particularly as social media sites have grown more aggressive in responding to — and in some cases removing — his most controversial comments from their sites and services. Last week, for example, Twitter took action against a pair of tweets from Trump that had sought to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2020 election. The company “labeled” the comments, directing users to more accurate information that shows how “voting by mail is safe and secure.”

Roughly 30 minutes after Trump sent the initial tweet — and another predicting election “mayhem” on the horizon — Trump called out Twitter itself, claiming the company deliberately surfaces and promotes “anything bad, Fake or not, about President Donald Trump.”

“So obvious what they are doing,” he continued. “Being studied now!”

After Twitter first took action against Trump — labeling his tweet about racial justice demonstrations in Minneapolis for glorifying violence — the president responded days later by signing a sweeping, controversial executive order targeting social media sites broadly. The directive tasked the Federal Communications Commission to rethink the scope of Section 230 and the instances in which its legal shield applies to tech giants, an idea the agency, which is independent from the White House, is studying. It also called on the Federal Trade Commission to probe whether the companies’ efforts to police the Web are in line with their public promises of political neutrality.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Smoke and Mirrors to allow the DOJ to indict Social Media or allow Trump Campaigners to do as they please?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Smoke and Mirrors to allow the DOJ to indict Social Media or allow Trump Campaigners to do as they please?

If it’s not pro-Trump, it’s fake news and hate and it needs to stop!

But seriously, I can’t make sense of what is being requested her. What is “unlawfully censor[ing] speech”? Also, a company already has liability for knowingly facilitating unlawful activity online under existing laws.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Other than that, with a Democrat controlled Congress, I doubt much will happen.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Twitter and Facebook are now publishers since they control what we can see. So let’s recognize that and Section 230 provides for that recognition.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Twitter and Facebook are now publishers

The speaker/publisher classification with respect to the law in question is on evaluating a specific instance of speech being examined. If Bill post something to Facebook, Bill is the speaker for the statement. When BackPage (an online classified) edited the posts of people offering questionable services so that those posts would get higher visibility, they became one of the speakers for the post.

If someone makes a comment under an article on a news site, that person is considered the publisher/speaker of the statement. The news site is still considered the publisher/speaker of their own stories.

If someone makes a comment about a book on the website of a book publisher, for that statement, the publisher is that person. Words can have multiple senses, and “publisher” pursuant to Section 230( c ) and the Constitutional First Amendment is not that same sense that may be used for other matters.

Speaker/Publisher with respect to section 230( c ) answers the question “who said it?”

since they control what we can see

This speaks on what courts have termed as “being sufficiently necessary for [Constitutional] Free Speech.” As of yet, none of the online services have achieved this status. The most recent ruling on the question was on a case that PragerU filed against Google/YouTube that received a decision earlier this year.

 

[Pattylt]

As of yet, none of the online services have achieved this status. The most recent ruling on the question was on a case that PragerU filed against Google/YouTube that received a decision earlier this year.

So, is this settled as far as the courts are concerned or are there further arguments to be made? I believe the Praeger U case confirmed that YouTube is just a platform for others and thus is still considered a private company which can define their own terms of service and thus can limit speech as they choose…correct? They aren’t “state actors”…whatever that means here. YouTube doesn’t produce their own content, they merely are the platform for others and it’s the others that are responsible for the content.

I think trying to force these companies to be defined as state actors and thus liable for free speech violations is a can of worms that could bite the current government in the rear. Even if there is bias (and I think there is really little bias occurring) the Twitters and Facebooks have the right to be biased…and they often try not to be. They are responsible if dangerous material is posted…inciting violence, promoting racism, etc. and it’s often a tough call. One side claims they are being stifled while the other claims that misinformation is dangerous. Is there an answer to this?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

confirmed that YouTube is just a platform for others and thus is still considered a private company which can define their own terms of service and thus can limit speech as they choose…correct?

Yeah, pretty much. That was a part of the court decision. There were many others, but that is one most relevant to this thread.

a private company which can define their own terms of service and thus can limit speech as they choose.

Yes.

Part of the reason that the Comminications and Decency Act exists was to ensure that online service providers were able to make their own decisions on what is appropriate or not appropriate. The Government had tried to regulate with prohibiting some content from the Internet. But the Supreme Court stated that was a violation of the First Amendment. Congress could take measures to ensure that the service providers could moderate.

They aren’t “state actors”…whatever that means here.

Here it can mean the government or one acting on behalf of the government. PragerU tried arguing that Google violated their Free Speech in one case, but the court rejected the argument noting that PragerU failed to allege Google was a state actor. PragerU tried again and tried to label Google as a state actor. The court’s reply was that PragerU’s arguments presented Google as a metaphor for a government. But a metaphor for a government is not a government.

YouTube doesn’t produce their own content

Actually, YouTube does produce some of its own content. It also licenses some content. YouTube has responsibility for the content that it produces itself. As for content that others produce, YouTube has less liability, but not no liability. There is an amendment to Section 230 on matters concerning sex trafficking that obligate online service providers to respond when notified of content that presents such dangers. There are also some rules that the FTC has on content that targets children. But if it is content that doesn’t deal with sex trafficking or targeting children, then who ever uploads content is considered the speaker of that content and the party with liabilities.

have the right to be biased…

They do have a right to have political bias. There is a popular misconception that Section 230 requires these parties to be politically neutral. But there is no such requirement in the section. I believe this comes from a misreading of Section 230 (a)(3), which observes that the Internet is a place of political diversity (src), but never mandates that any entity on the Internet enforce political diversity. Such enforcement may violate the First Amendment, among other laws.

. Is there an answer to this?

There are some service providers that promise no censorship, or as close to it as they can legally get. My personal opinion is that such services quickly evolve to having the worst of the Internet.