HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Sen. Warner to unveil bil...

Fri Feb 5, 2021, 12:34 PM

Sen. Warner to unveil bill reining in Section 230

Source: Washington Post

Sen. Mark R. Warner is set to introduce a bill that could hold Facebook, Google and other tech giants more directly accountable when viral posts and videos result in real-world harm.

The measure is dubbed the Safe Tech Act, and it marks the latest salvo from congressional lawmakers against Section 230. The decades-old federal rules help facilitate free expression online, but Democrats including Warner (Va.) say they also allow the most profitable tech companies to skirt responsibility for hate speech, election disinformation and other dangerous content spreading across the Web.

The senator’s proposal preserves the thrust of Section 230, which generally spares a wide array of website operators from being held liable for what their users say. Instead, it opens an easier legal pathway for Web users to seek court orders and file lawsuits if posts, photos and videos — and the tech industry’s refusal to police them — threaten them personally with abuse, discrimination, harassment, the loss of life or other irreparable harm.

“How can we continue to give this get-out-of-jail card to these platforms that constantly do nothing to address the foreseeable, obvious and repeated misuse of their products and services to cause harm? That was kind of our operating premise,” Warner said.



Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/05/senate-warner-section-230-reform/

11 replies, 2066 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2021, 12:47 PM

1. It's a good start

Much more needs to be done, though. As professor Zuboff has said we need a framework of new rights and new enforcement entities because a democracy can’t survive surveillance capitalism, and we are watching it destroy our democracy in real time. Her recent opinion piece in the New York Times spells it out clearly.

[link:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/opinion/sunday/facebook-surveillance-society-technology.amp.html|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2021, 01:09 PM

2. They also need to rein in cable outlets that spread lies and disinformation, resulting in riots,

sedition, and killings. If cable networks are not allowed to show snuff films and child pornography, they also should not be allowed to pass off lies and disinformation as "news" designed to tear apart our country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BComplex (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 5, 2021, 02:51 PM

4. Not related to 230 at all...

Section 230 protects online platforms (like DU) from civil liability for the content posted by its users. Fox News is already civily liable for the content it transmits (see: Dominion lawsuit); however it CANNOT be charged criminally (see: First Amendment).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 5, 2021, 02:58 PM

5. I'm aware. My point is that they can't just look at content from platforms, but also from

cable stations.

And no, Fox is NOT liable for the false content it has transmitted to help create the deep divisions in the United States. In the 2003 Fox vs. Franken ruling, the supreme court said fox was an entertainment venue, and therefore could tell all the lies it wants to.

Other countries in western europe, and just lately, Australia, have banned fox for stirring up the same shit they're stirring up here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BComplex (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 6, 2021, 09:30 AM

10. Not the Fox is entertainment myth again

This has been debunked countless times. Usually its allegedly based on a 2003 Florida appeals court case that didn't even involve Fox News, but rather was lawsuit against a Fox-owned and affiliated broadcast station (WTVT in Tampa) brought by a pair of reporters over their termination by the station.https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/

In your post, you cite the Fox v Franken case, which is even more off the point. It was a trademark infringement suit.

And Fox News hasn't been "banned" in Australia or other countries. In fact, Fox News International is now available in 30 countries around the world.https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-banned-australia-new-zealand/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 6, 2021, 10:08 AM

11. In response to your post, I went investigating

And you're right! I had been hearing for years on DU about the fox supreme court decision where they were told they could lie to their heart's content. I have re-posted that many times since. It sure enough is not true!

I read several posts a couple of weeks ago about fox being banned in western Europe in several countries. That was also on twitter. It is also not true.

Thank you for your post. I won't spread those lies any longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2021, 02:18 PM

3. So are we going to bring forth a new Fairness Doctrine

that also would be a good start.............just saying

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 5, 2021, 03:38 PM

6. Sure wouid. Fairness is SO needed.

Just like voting rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2021, 03:39 PM

7. now let's get a truth in politicians act for pols who lie in campaigns and while governing nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri Feb 5, 2021, 05:44 PM

8. It's a fair enough start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Sat Feb 6, 2021, 02:17 AM

9. The algorithms should be open for discussion

They are great
And they are evil.

I love that YouTube will suggest other videos on....say....chair repair, or puppy rescue, or whatever interests you. I still use the search, but I find other content just suggested on the side very helpful.

Its evil, when the subject is politics. Again, I love that I get other liberal channel suggestions. I appreciate that I don't have to search as much. Especially after subscribing to a few. But its the same with someone who rolls in conservative circles. They will, after the algorithm learns their likes and dislikes, only see conservative content. But they will have suggestions of even more extreme Right Wing channels on the side. I too find more extreme opinion content suggested for me. My only line is I try and keep to fact-based news opinion sites.

I can see that for some moderate conservative its too hard to stay away and not explore those other dangerous RW conspiracy theory channels that are suggested on their screens. It can get to the point that you are steered and herded until you have whittled your choices down to only those ones fulfilling your most dire crazy fears to explain the world to you. Its too easy to get caught in the web that you only you, and the ones who understand like you do, know about the world wide conspiracy of Jewish Laser ships for instance. It is insidious on the right, where normally good people, who used to rely on facts, now are told facts don't matter. Its all about YOU getting what YOU think YOU deserve. Fuck the government, fuck the immigrants, fuck the libtards and bleeding hearts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread