Joe Biden's desire to make changes to Section 230 of the communications decency act

[JuiceBeetle]

So has anyone else been reading about the joe Biden wanting g to revoke section 230? Or at least change it?
Heres onecarticle but theres been several in the last couple days.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thever ... act-revoke
This would severely affect the WMF projects as they are now!

Princess Emblyn:Ye it would affect everyone a lot tbh
Reguyla:Yeah my guess is this is the scare tactic but a smaller bill will pass as a "compromise" that has some changes but isn't as draconian.

[Abd]

For Lomax v. WMF, I needed to research Section 230. It has been interpreted far beyond the original intention. Section 230's intent was to allow free speech, but was interpreted to allow utterly outrageous behavior by "service providers," with no accountability at all. An extreme. With copyright, there is an appeal procedure, which is actually well-designed. Not with libel issues. I would suggest clarifying that a take-down notice for libel should be respected the same way as similar for copyright. The procedure creates actionable responsibility. The way it's been used by, say, Wikipedia, allows libel to be maintained without any responsible speaker.

[ericbarbour]

For Lomax v. WMF, I needed to research Section 230. It has been interpreted far beyond the original intention. Section 230's intent was to allow free speech, but was interpreted to allow utterly outrageous behavior by "service providers," with no accountability at all. An extreme. With copyright, there is an appeal procedure, which is actually well-designed. Not with libel issues. I would suggest clarifying that a take-down notice for libel should be respected the same way as similar for copyright. The procedure creates actionable responsibility. The way it's been used by, say, Wikipedia, allows libel to be maintained without any responsible speaker.

Wasn't even Wikipedia that started it--this "idea" was being pushed even before the CDA by early Internet-industry types like Pierre Omidyar and Yahoo's founders. They wanted to run forums/social media without being liable for any garbage their users might post. Classic libertarian propagandizing that somehow became "law".

[ericbarbour]

Biden my ass, today Trump attempted to promulgate an "Executive Order" to cancel Section 230. Because Twitter was mean to him.

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/28/86393275 ... -companies

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/busi ... peech.html

[ericbarbour]

Joe Biden doesn’t like Trump’s Twitter order, but still wants to revoke Section 230

It took Beltway politicians TWENTY YEARS to figure out they didn't like Section 230. Because it's being used against them.

If this weren't so disgusting I would lol.

[ericbarbour]

The Times weighs in again. But this article was written by a former Metafilter user, who asked Metafilter founder Matt Haughey for his "opinions". As you know, I dislike Metafilter for its extremely aggressive and paranoiac moderation, plus a certain tendency by the mods to allow certain users to start neverending arguments, in direct violation of the 'rules". Similar to Wikipedia, some users are "more equal" than others. Basically Haughey is a practiced hypocrite and a liar. (Just like Jimbo. And Trump too? Funny how the hypocrites and liars end up running things.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/tech ... itter.html

Are they spluttering about this on Metafilter? Of course:
https://www.metafilter.com/187277/The-P ... s-the-Mods