Read on Twitter
Dear God folks do anything you can to vote for Biden/Harris. As soon as you get your hands on your ballot.
There& #39;s so much more we also got to do. But that one is a gimme.
There& #39;s so much more we also got to do. But that one is a gimme.
IANAL of course, but these proposed 230 changes are...bad.
In order to maintain immunity, content providers, among other things, have to:
a) make their moderation criteria public
"have publicly available terms of service or use that state plainly and with particularity the criteria the service provider employs in its content- moderation practices"
"have publicly available terms of service or use that state plainly and with particularity the criteria the service provider employs in its content- moderation practices"
b) be consistent about following those criteria
"restrict access to or availability of material consistent with those terms of service or use and with any official representations or disclosures regarding the service provider’s content-moderation practices;"
"restrict access to or availability of material consistent with those terms of service or use and with any official representations or disclosures regarding the service provider’s content-moderation practices;"
c) NOT moderate content that falls outside of their pub& #39;d criteria
"not restrict access to...material on deceptive...grounds, or apply its [ToS] ... to restrict access to ... material that is similarly situated to material that the provider intentionally declines to restrict"
"not restrict access to...material on deceptive...grounds, or apply its [ToS] ... to restrict access to ... material that is similarly situated to material that the provider intentionally declines to restrict"
d) NOTIFY USERS that their content has been moderated and allow them to respond
"supply the provider of the material with timely notice describing with particularity the provider’s reasonable factual basis for the restriction of access and a meaningful opportunity to respond"
"supply the provider of the material with timely notice describing with particularity the provider’s reasonable factual basis for the restriction of access and a meaningful opportunity to respond"
Here& #39;s the redline of proposed changes (pdf). I recommend having a stiff beverage handy. https://www.justice.gov/file/1319331/download">https://www.justice.gov/file/1319...
There& #39;s also stuff in there that seems to equate to requiring a take-down notice for defamatory content and a loss of immunity if content provider does not remove content deamed by court order to be defamatory.
Proposed changes to (c)(2)(A) also concerning.
They want to add "has an objectively reasonable belief" to the criteria that moderated content is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent..."
They want to add "has an objectively reasonable belief" to the criteria that moderated content is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent..."
And they also add "promoting terrorism or violent extremism", "promoting self-harm," and "or unlawful."
We already know the harmful ways in which these phrases are used.
We already know the harmful ways in which these phrases are used.
AND they remove "or otherwise objectionable."
Basically this takes away any ability to use discretion by content providers.
If you& #39;ve ever moderated any kind of community forum, you know how important this is and how impossible it is to codify moderation decisions exactly into policy.
If you& #39;ve ever moderated any kind of community forum, you know how important this is and how impossible it is to codify moderation decisions exactly into policy.
And the requirements for notification mechanisms will be back-breaking for all but very large companies. No small groups are going to be able to run sites with user-generated content.
In case there& #39;s any doubt what these folks are up to.
