Who came up with changing sw
I absolutely love the change .in fact game changer
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
CoralieJuliet · 22-25, F
Pasunny · 26-30, F
@CoralieJuliet I feel ya but the post are better this way in my opinion
Khenpal1 · M
Well, It looks like that later this year there will be change to an act , Congress Holds a Hearing on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
It will probably kill 50% of groups here.
It will probably kill 50% of groups here.
Khenpal1 · M
@Pasunny If changed , sw is death meat.
What Is Section 230—And Why Does Trump Want To Change It?
Section 230 is a part of federal legislation passed more than 20 years ago. It runs only 26-words long—short and to the point. But it has had an outsize affect on life as we know it.
They are the “26 words that created the Internet,” says Jeff Kossett, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S Naval Academy and one of the foremost experts on Section 230.
Most fundamentally, Section 230 provides immunity to social media companies like Facebook and Twitter TWTR +2% against being sued over the content on their site. This allows them to operate and flourish without needing to moderate content.
“Section 230 set the legal framework for the internet that we know today that relies heavily on user content rather than content that companies create. Without Section 230, companies would not be willing to take so many risks,” Kosset says.
President Trump now wants to change Section 230. He signed a new executive order on Thursday that will try to curb how social media sites use the legislation to prevent legal action. “We’re here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers it has faced in American history,” he said in the Oval Office.
Here’s what Section 230 is and why Trump’s proposal matters to anyone like you—someone reading these words online.
What does Section 230 say exactly?
“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."
What does this mean in practice?
It offers a broad shield to tech companies, protecting them from lawsuits over content generated by users on their sites. It gives Twitter and Facebook the right to moderate content but does not give them the responsibility to do so. “Because content is posted on their platforms so rapidly there’s just no way they can possibly police everything,” says Sen. Ron Wyden, who helped create Section 230.
Tech companies are not absolved from everything. They’re still required to police some types of unlawful content, such as child pornography or bootleg movies.
Why was it created?
In the 1990s, Stratton Oakmont, the brokerage founded by Jordan Belfort—yes, the guy who Leonardo DiCaprio portrayed in Wolf of Wall Street—sued an internet service provider, Prodigy Services, for defamation. Someone on a Prodigy-run message board had accused Stratton Oakmont of fraud. The New York State Supreme Court ruled that Prodigy had acted as a publisher and thus was liable for defamation.
This case caught the attention of Wyden, then a Congressman for Oregon, who worked with California Rep. Chris Cox to include Section 230 as a protection for other internet businesses from lawsuits like Stratton Oakmont’s in their Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 was only a small portion of that broader legislation. The Communications Decency Act’s broader purpose was to slow the spread of child pornography on the web.
The U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision struck down most of the act the following year, ruling it that too greatly restricted free speech. But the court kept Section 230.
“A lot of people will say…that without Section 230, you wouldn’t have had the rise of social media because they would have been sued to oblivion,” says tech ethicist David Ryan Polgar, a Forbes.com contributor.
In essence, the act treats internet businesses “very similar to how we treat the Post Office,” Polgar explains. “There’s misinformation all the time that people are sending through letters, but you don’t blame the Post Office. They’re merely the conduit.”
Is Section 230 only relevant for social media sites?
No. It’s almost impossible to overstate how wide the legislation’s reach is. Twitter and Facebook rely on it. So does Google GOOGL -0.6%, for instance. Without it, the search engine company might be sued for what it displays in search results. Yelp and Amazon AMZN -1.9% see it as a fundamental underpinning to allowing reviews.
Why does Trump want to change Section 230?
Trump and other Republican politicians, including Senators Marco Rubio and Josh Hawley, believe social media sites like Twitter are unfairly biased against conservative speech. Twitter earlier this week appended fact-check warnings to several of the president’s tweets that sought to discredit mail-in ballots. This angered Trump, and he quickly vowed to apply greater regulation to social media sites.
While Trump and conservatives are the law’s loudest critics, it has some liberal detractors too. Its very creator, Wyden, a Democrat who is now a senator, has had some harsh words for tech companies. He envisioned Section 230 as not only a shield but also a sword, empowering them to actively curtail bad content on their sites. He has been disappointed with tech’s lack of interest in moderating itself, warning that if “you don’t use the sword, there are going to be people coming for your shield.”
How does Trump want to change Section 230?
Like many Trump Administration proposals, his idea for altering Section 230 is somewhat unclear. His executive order asks the FTC to step up regulation of social media sites and reconsider whether they should be allowed to broadly protect themselves under Section 230. These are tasks that the FTC seems uneager to do.
Any changes to Section 230 that force sites like Twitter to more actively moderate content could lead them to be more forceful in taking down content and labeling it as inaccurate.
Ironically, this could hurt Trump, who has come to rely on social media to spread his ideas, many of which are either partially or wholly untrue or inaccurate.
In the end, Trump forcing Twitter to change and get tougher on content could lead the platform to impose greater restrictions on the president’s tweets than the ones he complained about in the first place.
“Donald Trump is a big beneficiary of Section 230. If platforms were not immune under the law, then they would not risk the legal liability that could come with hosting Donald Trump’s lies, defamation and threats,” says Kate Ruane, the ACLU’s senior legislative counsel.
What’s been Twitter’s and Facebook’s response to the president’s actions?
Twitter has declined to comment, though it continued to apply fact check warnings to tweets on Wednesday (none of those messages were from Trump). Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have taken a different tack, continuing to argue that social media shouldn’t offer to fact check at all, an effort to avoid the conservative criticism that could lead to changes to Section 230. Companies like Facebook shouldn’t be expected to act as “arbiter of truth” Zuckerberg told CNBC.
What happens next?
Any Trump executive order will almost certainly face a legal challenge. Regulators, meanwhile, seem unenthused about taking on greater regulation. FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel sent this tweet Wednesday morning
What Is Section 230—And Why Does Trump Want To Change It?
Section 230 is a part of federal legislation passed more than 20 years ago. It runs only 26-words long—short and to the point. But it has had an outsize affect on life as we know it.
They are the “26 words that created the Internet,” says Jeff Kossett, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S Naval Academy and one of the foremost experts on Section 230.
Most fundamentally, Section 230 provides immunity to social media companies like Facebook and Twitter TWTR +2% against being sued over the content on their site. This allows them to operate and flourish without needing to moderate content.
“Section 230 set the legal framework for the internet that we know today that relies heavily on user content rather than content that companies create. Without Section 230, companies would not be willing to take so many risks,” Kosset says.
President Trump now wants to change Section 230. He signed a new executive order on Thursday that will try to curb how social media sites use the legislation to prevent legal action. “We’re here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers it has faced in American history,” he said in the Oval Office.
Here’s what Section 230 is and why Trump’s proposal matters to anyone like you—someone reading these words online.
What does Section 230 say exactly?
“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."
What does this mean in practice?
It offers a broad shield to tech companies, protecting them from lawsuits over content generated by users on their sites. It gives Twitter and Facebook the right to moderate content but does not give them the responsibility to do so. “Because content is posted on their platforms so rapidly there’s just no way they can possibly police everything,” says Sen. Ron Wyden, who helped create Section 230.
Tech companies are not absolved from everything. They’re still required to police some types of unlawful content, such as child pornography or bootleg movies.
Why was it created?
In the 1990s, Stratton Oakmont, the brokerage founded by Jordan Belfort—yes, the guy who Leonardo DiCaprio portrayed in Wolf of Wall Street—sued an internet service provider, Prodigy Services, for defamation. Someone on a Prodigy-run message board had accused Stratton Oakmont of fraud. The New York State Supreme Court ruled that Prodigy had acted as a publisher and thus was liable for defamation.
This case caught the attention of Wyden, then a Congressman for Oregon, who worked with California Rep. Chris Cox to include Section 230 as a protection for other internet businesses from lawsuits like Stratton Oakmont’s in their Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 was only a small portion of that broader legislation. The Communications Decency Act’s broader purpose was to slow the spread of child pornography on the web.
The U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision struck down most of the act the following year, ruling it that too greatly restricted free speech. But the court kept Section 230.
“A lot of people will say…that without Section 230, you wouldn’t have had the rise of social media because they would have been sued to oblivion,” says tech ethicist David Ryan Polgar, a Forbes.com contributor.
In essence, the act treats internet businesses “very similar to how we treat the Post Office,” Polgar explains. “There’s misinformation all the time that people are sending through letters, but you don’t blame the Post Office. They’re merely the conduit.”
Is Section 230 only relevant for social media sites?
No. It’s almost impossible to overstate how wide the legislation’s reach is. Twitter and Facebook rely on it. So does Google GOOGL -0.6%, for instance. Without it, the search engine company might be sued for what it displays in search results. Yelp and Amazon AMZN -1.9% see it as a fundamental underpinning to allowing reviews.
Why does Trump want to change Section 230?
Trump and other Republican politicians, including Senators Marco Rubio and Josh Hawley, believe social media sites like Twitter are unfairly biased against conservative speech. Twitter earlier this week appended fact-check warnings to several of the president’s tweets that sought to discredit mail-in ballots. This angered Trump, and he quickly vowed to apply greater regulation to social media sites.
While Trump and conservatives are the law’s loudest critics, it has some liberal detractors too. Its very creator, Wyden, a Democrat who is now a senator, has had some harsh words for tech companies. He envisioned Section 230 as not only a shield but also a sword, empowering them to actively curtail bad content on their sites. He has been disappointed with tech’s lack of interest in moderating itself, warning that if “you don’t use the sword, there are going to be people coming for your shield.”
How does Trump want to change Section 230?
Like many Trump Administration proposals, his idea for altering Section 230 is somewhat unclear. His executive order asks the FTC to step up regulation of social media sites and reconsider whether they should be allowed to broadly protect themselves under Section 230. These are tasks that the FTC seems uneager to do.
Any changes to Section 230 that force sites like Twitter to more actively moderate content could lead them to be more forceful in taking down content and labeling it as inaccurate.
Ironically, this could hurt Trump, who has come to rely on social media to spread his ideas, many of which are either partially or wholly untrue or inaccurate.
In the end, Trump forcing Twitter to change and get tougher on content could lead the platform to impose greater restrictions on the president’s tweets than the ones he complained about in the first place.
“Donald Trump is a big beneficiary of Section 230. If platforms were not immune under the law, then they would not risk the legal liability that could come with hosting Donald Trump’s lies, defamation and threats,” says Kate Ruane, the ACLU’s senior legislative counsel.
What’s been Twitter’s and Facebook’s response to the president’s actions?
Twitter has declined to comment, though it continued to apply fact check warnings to tweets on Wednesday (none of those messages were from Trump). Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have taken a different tack, continuing to argue that social media shouldn’t offer to fact check at all, an effort to avoid the conservative criticism that could lead to changes to Section 230. Companies like Facebook shouldn’t be expected to act as “arbiter of truth” Zuckerberg told CNBC.
What happens next?
Any Trump executive order will almost certainly face a legal challenge. Regulators, meanwhile, seem unenthused about taking on greater regulation. FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel sent this tweet Wednesday morning
AllelujahHaptism · 36-40, M
What's changed?
Looks the same on my phone :/
Looks the same on my phone :/
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
booboo · M
what are you talking about 🤔
The smart people
MarineBob · 56-60, M
Thank you