WebProNews

Tag: Section 230

  • Supreme Court Poised to Take Up Section 230 Tech Immunity

    Supreme Court Poised to Take Up Section 230 Tech Immunity

    The United States Supreme Court is preparing to address Section 230-based tech immunity in a case that could forever alter the industry.

    Section 230 generally protects websites and online platforms from legal repercussions resulting from the actions their users take. In recent years, this has become a sore spot for politicians and activists as social media platforms have increasingly been used to promote extremist behavior.

    According to Business Insider, the latest challenge to Section 230 protections comes via the Gonzalez v. Google case, which aims to hold the search giant responsible for the Paris terrorist attack in 2015. The plaintiff alleges that Google recommended ISIS videos in searches, increasing the chances of people being radicalized and driving ISIS recruitment.

    The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, setting up a showdown over the very nature of the internet. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act makes the following statement:

    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.

    Republicans have been among the staunchest critics of Section 230. Given the Supreme Court’s conservative makeup, there’s a good chance Section 230 will not survive in its current form

    At this point, it’s anyone’s guess what a revamped interpretation of Section 230 would look like. The possibilities range from requiring companies to make a good faith effort to step illegal content to completely obliterating the distinction between a “computer service” and a “publisher.”

  • Senators Want to Reform Section 230 Protections

    Senators Want to Reform Section 230 Protections

    Senators have introduced a bill to limit the protection afforded to tech companies by Section 230 and reform the legislation.

    Sens. Mark R. Warner, Mazie Hirono and Amy Klobuchar have announced Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism and Consumer Harms (SAFE TECH) Act in an effort to reform Section 230. Section 230 is the law that protects social media platforms and other internet companies from being legally liable for what users post on their site.

    The law has increasingly come under fire, with many saying it fosters the unhealthy, toxic culture that has come to define many platforms. What’s more, social media companies have started taking a more active role in moderating the content on their platforms. While the move has been welcomes by many, the fact that companies are actively moderating undermines the argument that they need protection from user-posted content.

    “When Section 230 was enacted in 1996, the Internet looked very different than it does today. A law meant to encourage service providers to develop tools and policies to support effective moderation has instead conferred sweeping immunity on online providers even when they do nothing to address foreseeable, obvious and repeated misuse of their products and services to cause harm,” said Sen. Warner, a former technology entrepreneur and the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “Section 230 has provided a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card to the largest platform companies even as their sites are used by scam artists, harassers and violent extremists to cause damage and injury. This bill doesn’t interfere with free speech – it’s about allowing these platforms to finally be held accountable for harmful, often criminal behavior enabled by their platforms to which they have turned a blind eye for too long.”

    “Section 230 was passed in 1996 to incentivize then-nascent internet companies to voluntarily police illegal and harmful content posted by their users. Now, twenty-five years later, the law allows some of the biggest companies in the world turn a blind eye while their platforms are used to violate civil and human rights, stalk and harass people, and defraud consumers—all without accountability,” Sen. Hirono said. “The SAFE TECH Act brings Section 230 into the modern age by creating targeted exceptions to the law’s broad immunity. Internet platforms must either address the serious harms they impose on society or face potential civil liability.”

    “We need to be asking more from big tech companies, not less. How they operate has a real-life effect on the safety and civil rights of Americans and people around the world, as well as our democracy. Holding these platforms accountable for ads and content that can lead to real-world harm is critical, and this legislation will do just that,” said Sen. Klobuchar.

    Republicans have been calling for changes to Section 230 for some time. With three Democratic senators now proposing change, it’s a good chance Section 230’s days as we know it are numbered.

  • Twitter Bans Trump Permanently

    Twitter Bans Trump Permanently

    Twitter has banned President Trump from its platform permanently, following an initial ban of 12 hours.

    Social media platforms have been under increased fire in the way of Wednesday’s insurrection at the US Capitol. While Twitter and Facebook have long been slow to ban political figures in the name of public interest, many critics and experts have blamed Trump’s rhetoric for inciting the insurrectionists. As a result, calls mounted for Twitter and Facebook to take more aggressive action to ban Trump and cut him off from his preferred method of communication.

    Facebook announced on Thursday that it would ban Trump for the remainder of his presidency. In the post announcing the decision, CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained the reasons.

    We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great. Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.

    Twitter has now taken an even stronger stance, banning Trump permanently from its platform.

    https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1347684877634838528?s=20

    The company explains its decision-making process in detail in a blog post, outlining the company’s belief that Trump’s recent tweets violate its Glorification of Violence Policy.

    As such, our determination is that the two Tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so.

    Social media firms are under increased scrutiny for their role in society’s ills, with many politicians on both sides of the aisle wanting the protections afforded by Section 230 rolled back.

    It remains to be seen if Twitter and Facebook’s actions will be enough to stave off significant regulatory changes.

  • Social Media Under Fresh Fire After Mob Storms Capitol

    Social Media Under Fresh Fire After Mob Storms Capitol

    Social media is under fresh fire in the wake of what is being called an “insurrection,” after a mob stormed the US Capitol.

    The US Congress met Wednesday to tally the Electoral College votes. Lawmakers were interrupted, however, when a mob stormed the Capitol, forcing lawmakers to shelter-in-place and eventually evacuate. In the aftermath of the unprecedented scene that unfolded, much of the attention turned to President Trump and the role he played in inciting the mob.

    At the same time, attention also turned to social media companies that have increasingly been criticized for allowing hate speech and radical content on their platforms. In many cases, social media platforms allow public officials more leeway than private citizens’ in the name of public interest.

    It appears today’s events, however, were the final straw, with Twitter banning President Trump for 12 hours and Facebook locking his account for 24. Twitter removed three of Trump’s tweets and Facebook put up warning labels. Twitter has also said its ban will become permanent if there are any further infractions against its policies.

    https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1346970431039934464?s=20

    https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1346970432017031178?s=20

    In spite of those actions, some are saying the platforms have not gone far enough. In recent months, Section 230 — the law that protects social media platforms from legal liability for what their users post — has drawn attention from politicians on both sides of the aisle. Many politicians, as well as industry experts, believe it is time to revisit the law and repeal it in favor of regulation that combines freedom of speech with civic responsibility.

    In view of yesterday’s events, we may have witnessed Section 230’s dying breath and, with it, the death knell of the sweeping immunity social media platforms have enjoyed.

  • Internet Companies Launch Initiative In Support of Section 230

    Internet Companies Launch Initiative In Support of Section 230

    Some of the most prominent internet companies have formed the Internet Works coalition to promote Section 230, a key internet law.

    Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives companies immunity for content users upload or post on their sites. As a result, companies like Facebook, Twitter and others cannot be held legally liable for an offensive post, picture or the like.

    In recent years Section 230 has come under fire, culminating in President Trump threatening to veto a defense spending bill unless Section 230 is revoked. While President-elect Biden has not weighed in on Section 230 directly, his former top tech advisor has said its time for changes to the law, throwing in question the law’s status even with a change of administration.

    Internet Works, however, is working to help educate lawmakers about the role of the law. Automattic (maker of WordPress), Cloudflare, Dropbox, eBay, Etsy, Glassdoor, GoDaddy, Medium, Nextdoor, Patreon, Pinterest, Reddit, Snap Inc., Tripadvisor, Vimeo and the Wikimedia Foundation are all members of the coalition.

    “These well-known internet companies and nonprofits launched Internet Works to elevate the voice of stakeholders across the digital economy and work with policymakers to preserve the benefits of Section 230, the foundational internet law that enables the United States to lead the world in innovation and robust job growth in the technology sector,” said Josh Ackil, Spokesperson for Internet Works. “Internet Works members rely on CDA 230 to make their platforms safe for users and support free expression. This coalition brings new voices and diverse perspectives to Washington’s current Section 230 debate, which too often focuses on the largest internet platforms.”

    The wide range of companies making up the coalition illustrates the far-reaching impact of Section 230. While many think of social media platforms as the primary beneficiaries of the law, companies like Dropbox also benefit. As a cloud storage provider, should Dropbox be liable for whatever a customer chooses to use that storage for? If Dropbox should be liable, then what measures should they be expected to take to verify the content they host? What privacy protections will customers be able to expect, or not expect, as a result of those measures?

    Whatever happens with Section 230, it’s clear there are significant challenges to addressing the problems of a modern internet.

  • Section 230’s Future Is Shaky…Even With a Biden/Harris Administration

    Section 230’s Future Is Shaky…Even With a Biden/Harris Administration

    The controversial Section 230, protecting social media companies, may be under threat even with the incoming Biden/Harris administration.

    Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects online platforms from being legally responsible for the content their users post. This has, in some ways, given rise to the toxic culture often associated with social media, as there are not strong incentives for companies to crack down on hate speech, cyberbullying and the like.

    While companies have slowly began to self-moderate, it has increasingly become a murky situation. On the one hand, some critics have praised Facebook, Twitter and others for beginning to crack down on some content, while others have decried their attempts as censorship. These accusations have come from the very heights of government, as President Trump has alternated between using Twitter as his preferred communication platform and blasting the company when it flags his posts containing misinformation. As a result, most recently, Trump has even threatened to veto a defense spending bill unless Section 230 is repealed.

    The situation is further complicated by the very fact that social media companies have begun moderating content. Critics argue the companies no longer need, nor should have, the protections of Section 230 since they’ve already begun to self-moderate—the very thing they weren’t legally required to do.

    While Trump has been clamoring for the repeal of Section 230, some had thought a new administration might take a different approach. It appears, however, that Section 230’s future may still be uncertain.

    At a virtual book launch hosted by Georgetown Law, Bruce Reed—who served as a top tech advisor for President-elect Joe Biden during his campaign—made the case for changes to Section 230.

    I think there’s an emerging consensus that it’s long past time to hold the big social media platforms accountable for what’s published on their platforms, the way we do newspaper publishers and broadcasters.

    Needless to say, Reed’s comments are non-binding. In the interview he even goes so far as to say that he doesn’t speak for the new administration’s tech policy. Nonetheless, his observations come from years serving as a close associate of Biden, both as a campaign tech advisor and as his chief of staff during his time as vice-president.

    Therefore, while non-binding, Reed’s comments may very well indicate change is on the horizon for Section 230.

  • Justice Department Recommends Rolling Back Big Tech Protections

    Justice Department Recommends Rolling Back Big Tech Protections

    In the wake of President Trump’s executive order targeting social media companies, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed rolling back tech protections.

    The issue started several weeks ago when Twitter, for the first time ever, fact-checked Trump on two of his tweets. As a result, Twitter suddenly found itself in the crosshairs of the president, who wasted no time signing an executive order to target the legal protections tech companies enjoy.

    Now the DOJ has taken up the banner, proposing changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 largely grants immunity to tech companies for what their users post on their platforms. This immunity has helped tech and social media companies to grow, with minimal concern about the legal repercussions of what their users say.

    “When it comes to issues of public safety, the government is the one who must act on behalf of society at large. Law enforcement cannot delegate our obligations to protect the safety of the American people purely to the judgment of profit-seeking private firms. We must shape the incentives for companies to create a safer environment, which is what Section 230 was originally intended to do,” said Attorney General William P. Barr. “Taken together, these reforms will ensure that Section 230 immunity incentivizes online platforms to be responsible actors. These reforms are targeted at platforms to make certain they are appropriately addressing illegal and exploitive content while continuing to preserve a vibrant, open, and competitive internet.”

    The proposed changes center around four primary goals, including incentivizing platforms to address illicit content, being more transparent in how content is moderated, clarifying the government’s enforcement powers and promoting competition.

    It remains to be seen if any proposed changes will gain enough traction in Congress. Section 230 has been around as long as it has specifically because navigating these issues can quickly turn into a quagmire.