View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:49 am




Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Why is Section 230 a bad law? 
Author Message
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1575
Reply with quote
New example:
https://gizmodo.com/when-a-stranger-dec ... 1827546385
Quote:
There is a constellation of sites on the internet that exist solely as places for people to exorcise their demons, and more importantly, their grudges; She’s A Homewrecker is one of them. It offers the opportunity to publicize a person’s misdeeds so that they are available not just to an inner circle with access to relevant gossip but to anyone who Googles that person’s name. The terms of service specify that posts must be factually true, but if they’re not, it’s not a problem for the site. It’s protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects websites from being sued for the things their users say.

And the money shot:
Quote:
Rosenblum did not respond to media inquiries via email or Facebook Messenger. She appears active on Facebook as recently as July 4, but she has been sentenced to four years for kidnapping and the Alabama Department of Corrections website says she started her term in November 2017.

Google is prominently mentioned as being a major reason for Sec 230 abuse.

There you are, premium examples of why Sec 230 is bad lawmaking. Similar laws exist elsewhere but aren't quite as cut-and-dried. Combine this with the American tendency to tolerate a lot of libel and slander and you have an "opportunity".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2 ... _countries


Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:28 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4185
Reply with quote
Quote:
The terms of service specify that posts must be factually true, but if they’re not, it’s not a problem for the site. It’s protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects websites from being sued for the things their users say.
Raises a lot of questions. Obviously truth is the ultimate defence in a court, but can you leave it up until a court rules? I'm thinking no.


Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:58 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1575
Reply with quote
This story is amazing. Rumors about people using Grindr for "revenge" have been going around but here's an actual court case.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ty ... e-stalking

Quote:
Herrick’s lawyers say this case goes beyond Section 230 because Grindr knows it has put a dangerous product on the market with no means of filtering out bad actors, even when it knows someone like J.C. is abusing the platform. Grindr could hire more people to handle complaints, identify and ban serial harassers as Twitter has, or implement technology like Facebook is using to stop revenge porn, but has decided it’s cheaper to do nothing and hide behind Section 230 for protection, they say.

Yes, folks, I'm sorry to report that some gay men are deeply self-destructive as well as sadistic. Some straight folks are the same way. It's always been like this, but today we have the Internet and Sec 230. They make it so much easier to manipulate crazy people into doing the "dirty work" for you....
Quote:
The profiles falsely claimed Herrick was HIV-positive, interested in unprotected sex and bondage, and that he was “Looking for a group of hung tops to come over and destroy my ass.” Through Grindr, Herrick says J.C. directed these men to his apartment or workplace, creating a world of chaos for him on a daily basis.


Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:57 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3516
Reply with quote
Section 230 was of course never meant in the way WMF is using it, and it is clear the European courts wake up and the European Parlement too. And I think the American courts are closely looking what happens on the other side of the ocean at the moment and draw there own conclusions. Because in the way WMF is running it's "charity foundation' is absolute not in the way where people are giving their money for and judges in general don't like "clever boys" who are doing this kind of thinks much. Both in Europa and America. In that case a judge shows he is much more clever often....

So likely we will see more and more this kind of trails and it wouldn't surprise me at all at the end it appears using Section 230 in this way was not at all as clever as it looks. Arthur noticed it before, judges and governments are waking up, and they start to understand what internet is.
It would'd surprise me at all if the wonder wikipedia ended up in a nightmare. Not at all. And sooner than you think.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:34 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3516
Reply with quote
Wikipedia is simple a extreem dangers product, I can testify that without giving many details. It's extreem dangers for your health. And although I don't know the American legal system, I can imagine Section 230 isn't protecting WMF at all anymore after James Alexander his crazy kamikaze action to SanFanBan of me. Arthur has stipulated that even om WO. Because it was a direct intervention to hide the true.
And what a horrible true are we talking about, perfect documented by me. It doesn't mattere it is in Dutch, there are translators for.

And I think this is the answer for the strange and sudden disappearing of Mister James Alexander out the WMF house and the oorverdovende stilte. I mean the complete silence from the side of WMF and it's director and James of course.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:40 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1575
Reply with quote
Quote:
"Section 230" has recently become a rallying cry du jour among the far right. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who was among the lawmakers present at the summit, recently introduced legislation seeking to amend the law, revoking "the immunity big tech companies receive under Section 230 unless they submit to an external audit that proves by clear and convincing evidence that their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral."

The idea of Section 230 reform has also drawn support from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), as well as support in the house from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.).

Nor are the Republicans alone. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in an April interview that section 230 is "a gift" to the tech firms, "and I don't think they are treating it with the respect that they should, and so I think that could be a question mark and in jeopardy."

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... e-illegal/


Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:35 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 6 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.