GOP's latest attack on Section 230

[Midsize Jake]

The Trump Administration has drafted, but not finalized, an Executive Order that would direct the FTC to investigate "how tech companies curate their platforms and whether they do so in neutral ways," and then to work with the FCC to possibly deny Section 230 protections to online platforms that fail to conform with their definition of "neutral" (i.e., whether or not they support Trump). They somewhat comically call this the "Protecting Americans from Online Censorship" order.

It might not reach the point of actually being signed (they probably leaked it to see what the reactions would be; so far they've been uniformly negative), and while the POTUS can't actually rescind Section 230 all by himself, technically speaking the POTUS probably could legally set prosecutorial and enforcement "priorities" for the FTC by Executive Order, at least until said order is annulled by Congress or declared unconstitutional by a Federal Courts, which in normal times would take about 15 minutes.

Most of the non-right-wing media coverage of this has been of the "this nonsense is absurdly unconstitutional" variety, and of course it is, but I thought it was interesting that they used the word "neutral." Maybe it's nothing.

Politico
CNN
Common Dreams
Boing Boing

As usual though, everyone (or at least, everyone who isn't completely distracted by the Epstein suicide brouhaha) is focused on how this will affect Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Instagram, etc., since they all have tens of millions of actual, every-single-day users. But Wikipedia, which gets just as much casual-reader traffic (if not more), has been in Republican crosshairs too - last year's rant by Rep. Louie "No Gays Allowed In My Spaceship" Gohmert (R-TX-01) was a big hit on Youtube (his utterly-bogus story about WP starts at 4:12).

[Poetlister]

Haven't we often said that we'd like Wikipedia to be stripped of its Section 230 protection? Just because Trump agrees with us is no reason to change our mind!

[mendaliv]

Haven't we often said that we'd like Wikipedia to be stripped of its Section 230 protection? Just because Trump agrees with us is no reason to change our mind!

I mean, I'm sure Abd would be happy.

... at least until he still got his complaint dismissed via 12(b)(6) motion.

[Poetlister]

It would do wonders for the BLP issues that we rightly complain about.

[Randy from Boise]

Haven't we often said that we'd like Wikipedia to be stripped of its Section 230 protection? Just because Trump agrees with us is no reason to change our mind!

Actually, no, you can plot a satisfactory course for your life and belief system with 100% accuracy by thinking, saying, and doing the exact opposite of anything that Donald Trump advocates. He is wrong about everything, always. If their is a destructive option, he will pursue it. If there is evil to be done, he will do it.

RfB

[Midsize Jake]

Actually, no, you can plot a satisfactory course for your life and belief system with 100% accuracy by thinking, saying, and doing the exact opposite of anything that Donald Trump advocates. He is wrong about everything, always. If their is a destructive option, he will pursue it. If there is evil to be done, he will do it.

Well, exactly. The ideal solution to the Section 230 problem from the anti-WP perspective, unrealistic as it may seem now, was to "hyper-clarify" the law to such a point where its protections would only apply to websites where all user-provided content is clearly and directly associated with a specific individual - with the proviso that it would be OK for the site operator to edit or delete that content to keep it in line with the site's ToU. So, these "non-wiki-type" sites would include Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, forums, free-hosted blogs, comment sections on blogs and news sites, etc., and maybe even wiki talk pages, but not wiki articles, because those are displayed/presented as authoritative, the product of a theoretically global/universal social collective. Still, this wouldn't prevent wikis from hosting articles; it would just make the hosts liable in cases of libel or public endangerment, though that would probably amount to the same thing after a few weeks or so.

Of course, history has worked out differently than we expected. The political far right has mobilized its financial, technical, and to some degree human, resources to take over non-wiki-type sites (think 8chan, Reddit extremists, Russian psy-ops, revenge porn sites et al) to the point where many have become even more dangerous - and in some cases, far more dangerous - to democracy and the social order than most (though not all) wiki sites. (And to be fair, the far left would probably do the same thing, if they had enough money.) As a result, the likelihood that any sort of political consensus can be reached to make a real, legal distinction between the two site-types is essentially nil these days.

Meanwhile, Trump's draft Executive Order is actually a different animal. It's clear that they see how important Section 230 is for protecting Big Tech companies (and also Wikipedia) from having to pay potentially crippling legal settlements. So their solution is not to get rid of it, but to selectively apply it - in other words, allow only the websites they like (or at least don't dislike) to take advantage of its vaguely-worded protections. This might still be bad for Wikipedia, because many Republicans dislike Wikipedia. But because it's the worst possible case for everyone else, including sites like this one right here, it's really hard to support it.

[Poetlister]

Does this site have immunity because of Section 230? Mr Midsize does a brilliant job of keeping the place in order, but that very brilliance might lead to the argument that if by chance anything nasty does remain, he can be charged with negligence.

[Midsize Jake]

Does this site have immunity because of Section 230? Mr Midsize does a brilliant job of keeping the place in order, but that very brilliance might lead to the argument that if by chance anything nasty does remain, he can be charged with negligence.

We do have immunity because of Section 230, and thanks for the vote of confidence (?), but the whole issue of negligence would probably never come up in our case because we're just too small a target. The same is true for the other WP criticism sites too IMO, at least until some billionaire VC guy comes along and convinces one of us to fully incorporate.

[Bezdomni]

some billionaire VC guy

Are there really Viet-Cong billionaires?

[Johnny Au]

some billionaire VC guy

Are there really Viet-Cong billionaires?

Even the Communist Party of Vietnam is open to business, ironically enough.

[Poetlister]

some billionaire VC guy

Are there really Viet-Cong billionaires?

No, he means a British or Nepalese soldier who has won the Victoria Cross (T-H-L).

[Daniel Brandt]

The arguments in this thread assume that in order to fix Section 230, one has to take an "all or nothing" approach. There is a simple halfway measure, which was decreed by the highest court in the European Union several years ago. It is frequently referred to as the "right to be forgotten."

If 230 was amended in this fashion, it would be a big step forward, and also something that Wikipedia's rulers could abide.

I spent a couple of years trying to get my bio deleted from Wikipedia. If both me and the Wikimedia Foundation were based in the EU, it would have taken only a week or two, assuming that the U.S. already had such a modification of 230. In fact, when the EU high court ruled on this, Google quickly compiled a list of all EU member countries, and started obeying this new ruling -- but only for complainants who lived in EU countries, naturally!

The real question is, "Why are there so many bigshots on Wikipedia who haven't figured out that there needs to be a 'right to be forgotten' section in the BLP policy?" SlimVirgin's support for a BLP policy in early 2005 was an important step forward, but it was merely a baby step and didn't help me. It took much additional pressure from me to get that bio deleted.

[Poetlister]

If 230 was amended in this fashion, it would be a big step forward, and also something that Wikipedia's rulers could abide.

I agree with the first half of this, but would doubt the second half. Does Wikipedia's rulers refer to the WMF or the "community"? Of course, either of them could be forced to obey US law, but they wouldn't like it.

[Midsize Jake]

Just as a quick update:

Apparently the Justice Department held a "workshop" last week on Section 230, with an eye towards trying to push Josh Hawley's (R-MO) "Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act" bill (PDF) through Congress. That prompted this story on CNN, which is mostly a rehash of the material that came out last summer (and which is probably best summarized by this story on Wired.com, though I should say I'm not super-happy with Wired.com at the moment).

The bad news is they're only going to have this law apply to "Big Tech" companies by writing in minimum revenue/user-count numbers.

The bill applies only to companies with more than 30 million active monthly users in the U.S., more than 300 million active monthly users worldwide, or who have more than $500 million in global annual revenue.

I guess this means everything depends on how the WMF is going to be allowed to define the term "users," then. If they're forced to equate "users" with "visitors," then they could easily be, well... fucked, at least in the USA. If not, and they're allowed to define "users" to mean "editors" (which is what I'd expect would happen), not to mention use their own definition of the word "active," then Wikipedia would of course fall well below the threshold for all three of those conditions. Presumably they could then continue to operate the way they've been operating, perhaps indefinitely.

Anyway, since this is a Republican initiative, the intent is still to force right-wing ideological compliance:

Gives big tech companies the ability to earn immunity through external audits:
Big tech companies would have to prove to the FTC by clear and convincing evidence that their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral.

Which is to say, "not anti-Republican." So... I guess the question for Wikipedia then becomes, would preferential linking to Wikipedia (by sites that are directly affected) be considered "politically neutral," or would the Republicans be able to force companies like Google and Facebook to link — or at least "start linking more" — to right-wing sites instead, thereby eating into Wikipedia's PageRanks and recruitment capacity?

We already know that most of the more extreme Republican Congressmen (like Steve King (R-IA) and Louie Gohmert (R-TX)) don't consider Wikipedia to be "politically neutral," at least not publicly. So if guys like them are the ones in charge of these "external audits," that could certainly be a problem for WP.

[Poetlister]

I think most people here would agree that there is a de facto house POV at Wikipedia which on the whole leans more to Democrat than Republican. Of course, there is no shortage of right-wing leaning editors, and some articles conform to their views, so we can only say "on the whole". But how could the WMF do anything about it? it would take quite a clever bot to spot and rewrite biased articles, and unless such articles are protected, the bot might get overruled pretty rapidly.

[Mason]

The latest howlings of Trump wanting to "close down" social media because Twitter fact-checked him seem relevant to this thread:

Trump to sign executive order on social media amid Twitter furor

In a similar vein, GOP tech critic Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) wrote in a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday that the company's “decision to editorialize regarding the content of political speech raises questions about why Twitter should continue receiving special status and special immunity from publisher liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "And he later teased on social media plans for a separate proposal to "end these special government giveaways."

It's hard to feel too sorry for Twitter, of course, since their lack of fact-checking in 2015 (and earlier) helped fuel the rise of these monsters in the first place.

[Poetlister]

But it's a bit thick to argue that commenting on Trump's post is depriving him of free speech. Even if Twitter blocks an account (and of course Trump won't be blocked), that cannot be contested on grounds of free speech. On the contrary, Trump is depriving people of their right to free speech if they cannot comment on his posts.

[DHeyward]

But it's a bit thick to argue that commenting on Trump's post is depriving him of free speech. Even if Twitter blocks an account (and of course Trump won't be blocked), that cannot be contested on grounds of free speech. On the contrary, Trump is depriving people of their right to free speech if they cannot comment on his posts.

The argument is whether Twitter is a platform or a publisher. If they start curating political content, they become a publisher liable for content like NY Times or WaPost. That there is anger directed facebook for not curating political content and the twitter/facebook anger falls on political lines I think says a lot about free and open discourse.

[charliemouse]

I don't know about Twitter but this could be bad news for Wikipedia. I haven't read the whole thread but I assume this has been pointed out.

[Zoloft]

<snip>That there is anger directed facebook for not curating political content and the twitter/facebook anger falls on political lines I think says a lot about free and open discourse.

In what way? You pick a side?

[Midsize Jake]

I don't know about Twitter but this could be bad news for Wikipedia. I haven't read the whole thread but I assume this has been pointed out.

Indeed.

Again, the Republicans aren't going to do anything about Section 230 unless they can make it apply (or not apply) selectively. There are two goals here: First, to give Trump a means of intimidating people into not criticizing him; and second, to eliminate public criticism of Republicans altogether. Obviously the second thing will take more time, but as for the first, Wikipedia is completely safe in this regard — Trump has never read the Wikipedia article about himself, because it's well over two sentences long.

[DHeyward]

<snip>That there is anger directed facebook for not curating political content and the twitter/facebook anger falls on political lines I think says a lot about free and open discourse.

In what way? You pick a side?

I didn't think free and open discourse was a side. I don't think Twitter, Facebook, google, or any platform site should curate political content (beyond fighting words, pornography, etc). They can be a publisher if they want to police ideas.

[Poetlister]

Trump has never read the Wikipedia article about himself, because it's well over two sentences long.

But I bet Jared Kushner has read it, and the one about himself. Trump may listen to him.

[Midsize Jake]

I didn't think free and open discourse was a side. I don't think Twitter, Facebook, google, or any platform site should curate political content (beyond fighting words, pornograpu, etc). They can be a publisher if they want to police ideas.

The obvious implication being that there's no difference between an outright lie and an "idea," at least if the outright lie can be viewed as "political content" by... in this case, the person posting it.

On the plus side, Wikipedia couldn't possibly survive for long if that principle were put into practice.

[Mason]

It's the post-truth era, remember? One man's "false accusation of murder" is another's "just asking the question."

Did Ted Cruz's dad help murder JFK? Who can say? Teach the controversy; the Marketplace of Ideas will sort it out. No fact-checking needed.

[Midsize Jake]

But I bet Jared Kushner has read it, and the one about himself. Trump may listen to him.

Don't be ridiculous. Trump doesn't "listen" to anyone, period. (Maybe he did when Roy Cohn was still alive, but that was a long time ago.) Kushner's own intellect and attention span are both vastly overrated — even now that people have started to see just how stupid and bungling he actually is.

Trump and Kushner probably don't even bother with reputation-management companies, since they have Russia. OTOH, the RNC and other parts of the Republican political apparatus definitely monitor things like Wikipedia articles, including the ones on Trump and Kushner, but the last thing they want to do is point out public criticism to these guys; they can't handle it, they don't want to hear it, and they don't think they should have to.

The Republicans who do this stuff are both ruthless and smart — far more so than the Democrats who do it, I might add. They know how useful and valuable Wikipedia is to them; there's no other cheap/easy/quick way to obtain an instantaneous Big Google Footprint for... well, anything. They also know Wikipedia articles don't have to say exactly what they want them to say, they just need Wikipedia's imprimatur on whatever piece of dirt they're flinging around to reassure their base that it's an actual "thing." Trump doesn't think that way, he needs unreserved glorification with zero criticism, and anything else is of no use to him.

If the Republicans can do something to prevent Trump from remembering that Wikipedia even exists, assuming he ever knew it existed in the first place, that's what they'll do.

[DHeyward]

I didn't think free and open discourse was a side. I don't think Twitter, Facebook, google, or any platform site should curate political content (beyond fighting words, pornograpu, etc). They can be a publisher if they want to police ideas.

The obvious implication being that there's no difference between an outright lie and an "idea," at least if the outright lie can be viewed as "political content" by... in this case, the person posting it.

On the plus side, Wikipedia couldn't possibly survive for long if that principle were put into practice.

Wikipedia attributes all its "truth." The point being attribution, not arbitration is the solution. The obvious implication is I suspect there would opposition to a Trump appointed FCC Ministry of Truth board to decide what on social media is true and what posts need warnings.

[Midsize Jake]

Wikipedia attributes all its "truth." The point being attribution, not arbitration is the solution.

Putting aside the issue of whether or not Wikipedia articles actually carry citations for all their facts (and just so you know, I don't think so), what is this a solution for? Someone like Donald Trump isn't going to put links in his tweets to "reliably-sourced" news coverage of things that are clearly not happening in reality. Never gonna happen. At best, he might put in a link (if he even knows how) to backup pieces on Fox News or OAN or Breitbart, and of course he can dictate to those outlets practically anything he wants them to say, in their "voice." So Jack Dorsey might as well just let him say whatever he wants, for all the difference that would make.

I know I sound like a broken record, but what the Republicans want to do here is not "revoke" or even change Section 230, they just want to use the threat of its selective disapplication from specific companies as a weapon of intimidation. (I know "disapplication" is a rarely-used word, but that's only because we've never had a government that tried to do things like this before.)

In effect, they want to take the worst aspect of Section 230 — namely, the fact that it encourages website operators to be as irresponsible as they can possibly be — and make it even worse by forcing them to be as irresponsible as they can possibly be.

And frankly, they've already won. The people who run multi-billion-dollar social media companies know Trump doesn't care about negative popular reaction to anything he does, and they aren't going to risk cooking their golden goose just for the sake of democracy either. Half of them already think democracy is hopelessly outmoded and should just be replaced by their own proprietary software.

[Poetlister]

It's the post-truth era, remember? One man's "false accusation of murder" is another's "just asking the question."

Did Ted Cruz's dad help murder JFK? Who can say? Teach the controversy; the Marketplace of Ideas will sort it out. No fact-checking needed.

And where did John Seigenthaler fit in?

[Poetlister]

Putting aside the issue of whether or not Wikipedia articles actually carry citations for all their facts (and just so you know, I don't think so)

They certainly don't. And even if there is a cite, it may be to an unreliable source or the source may not confirm what is stated.

[Zoloft]

no-trump-tweet.png

Speaking as someone who banned lots of assholes on many different platforms, I recognize the peculiar tension that exists just before a prolific shit-poster is finally banned.

Trump's account is about to be closed.

What then? Well, everyone is forgetting about this:

potus-shpotus.png

Currently all this account does is retweet @realDonaldTrump.

Will Twitter close this account too?

Edit: The White House controls at least a dozen official Twitter accounts. Ban them all?

[Mason]

no-trump-tweet.png


Speaking as someone who banned lots of assholes on many different platforms, I recognize the peculiar tension that exists just before a prolific shit-poster is finally banned.

Trump's account is about to be closed.

What then? Well, everyone is forgetting about this:


potus-shpotus.png

Currently all this account does is retweet @realDonaldTrump.

Will Twitter close this account too?

Edit: The White House controls at least a dozen official Twitter accounts. Ban them all?

I'm skeptical they'll pull that trigger, but assuming they do... what's he do then, switch to an even-worse-than-Twitter alt-right alternative and thereby raise its profile?

Presumably that alternative is neither ready to handle the huge influx of readers and followers or sufficiently fortified to fend off the inevitable DoS attacks.

Or maybe he just "tweets" from Facebook. Sounds like Zuckerberg was more or less inviting him to do just that, without fear of being fact-checked.

[Zoloft]

My final question, it’s way out there.

Is it possible to deplatform the President of the United States?

Stay tuned.

[Pudeo]

How do you even fact-check a claim about elections that haven't been voted in yet? Trump thinks there will be voter fraud. Experts interviewed by NBC think fraud will be extremely unlikely. Still, fraud is possible. Are they going to fact-check claims like "legalizing cannabis will have harmful effects" or "privatization leads to a more efficient public sector"? All hail technocrat overlords.

Well, even Google treats Twitter and Reddit in a special way. If a normal app has even mild nudity, it will be removed from the Google Play Store, yet Twitter and Reddit can have outright pornography. I hope they lose their special status, because they don't deserve it.

[Mason]

How do you even fact-check a claim about elections that haven't been voted in yet? Trump thinks there will be voter fraud. Experts interviewed by NBC think fraud will be extremely unlikely. Still, fraud is possible. Are they going to fact-check claims like "legalizing cannabis will have harmful effects" or "privatization leads to a more efficient public sector"? All hail technocrat overlords.

Well, even Google treats Twitter and Reddit in a special way. If a normal app has even mild nudity, it will be removed from the Google Play Store, yet Twitter and Reddit can have outright pornography. I hope they lose their special status, because they don't deserve it.

If they do lose their special status, do you think they will be more likely, or less likely, to fact-check or simply ban people like Donald Trump from their platform?

[Midsize Jake]

How do you even fact-check a claim about elections that haven't been voted in yet?

He's not doing that, he's not talking about the upcoming elections. He's saying that mail-in balloting in general is not only subject to voter fraud, fraud has actually been... proven? documented? Where? When? We don't know, because both claims are utterly false.

I mean, in all seriousness, the only reason he doesn't just say, "Hey all you Republicans out there, I want you to go and threaten your State representatives and tell them to stop mail-in balloting because baby earthworms are cute and my extra slice of bacon sang to me during breakfast today" is because there are still idiots in the reality-based media who will treat him like a sane adult as long as he keeps pretending to be one. He still has to make the lie look like it could be something he actually believes. But we're getting off-topic.

[Poetlister]

I expect that if any mere mortal had behaved in Twitter as Trump has, he'd have been banned long ago. As for the official accounts, presumably they are for the Government of the day (whoever is in it) rather than Trump personally. They might be frozen until January, but not closed down.

[Ming]

The opinion at The Atlantic is that the real target is Zuckerberg, not Twitter.

[Earthy Astringent]

I just issued a Misanthrope Order:

Fuck you Trump. Fuck you Moscow Mitch

It will have all of the effectiveness as Trump's 230 XO.

[Midsize Jake]

Under a normal Presidential administration, when an Executive Order is signed it's published in the Federal Register the same day or the next, depending on how late the signing is. Apparently this White House likes to waste take its time, so documents like this now take as many as 5 working days to be published. So my original thought, that a joke-like document like this couldn't possibly be a real Executive Order, is probably wrong — but I assume we'll find that out sometime next week.

Regardless, it's too bad that it contains so much BS political theatre, conspiracy theorizing, whiny personal attacks against Trump's enemies, and general-purpose attacks against the Chinese, because much of what this thing says about Section 230 is completely justifiable. I guess we'll have to wait and see how much this sets back the effort to obtain genuine reform, but presumably we were never going to get that under Trump anyway.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... ensorship/

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
Issued on: May 28, 2020

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy.

Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship.

(a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech.

(a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices.

(a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).

(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws.

(a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

Sec. 6. Legislation.

The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

Sec. 7. Definition.

For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

Sec. 8. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

[Midsize Jake]

FWIW, Trump has now tweeted that he wants to revoke "230," which could mean Section 230 but could also mean some other "230" entirely:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 3996870656

Still, if this isn't some sort of ruse, this means both major Presidential candidates are now on-record as saying they want to revoke Section 230. I'm still confident it will come to nothing in the near term, and it won't pass both houses of Congress in any event, but long-term this could be remembered as a red-letter day for Section 230 opponents. Joe Biden even reiterated his position on the issue today:

...Biden’s position on Section 230 remains unchanged. A spokesperson for the campaign told The Verge Friday that the former vice president maintains his position that the law should be revoked and that he would seek to propose legislation that would hold social media companies accountable for knowingly platforming falsehoods. Unlike Trump, Biden’s policies are meant to lead to more moderation of misinformation, rather than less.

[Mason]

Unlike Trump, Biden’s policies are meant to lead to more moderation of misinformation, rather than less.

That's the thing I don't get. Why does the GOP want to ensure that their rhetoric is more strictly moderated by social media?

I understand where Biden is coming from.

I understand where Trump is coming from too: they disrespect him by fact-checking him, he instinctively lashes out and threatens to take away something they want to keep, consequences be damned. Stimulus-response.

I don't understand what the GOP gets out of it, though; not only will the Twitters and Facebooks have to start clamping down hard on the (for example) false accusations of murder, but so will the small-time right-wing alternatives that the peddlers of such fare will be forced to migrate to once the big guys ban them. Wouldn't that be bad for them? Why do they want fewer platforms to have access to?

[Midsize Jake]

I don't understand what the GOP gets out of it, though; not only will the Twitters and Facebooks have to start clamping down hard on the (for example) false accusations of murder, but so will the small-time right-wing alternatives that the peddlers of such fare will be forced to migrate to once the big guys ban them. Wouldn't that be bad for them? Why do they want fewer platforms to have access to?

I can barely imagine. I'm beginning to suspect they haven't thought any of this through at all.

I guess we could assume they don't intend to do anything substantive with this, and that it's just a means of intimidating the Big Players so that they let them, and only them, say whatever they want. As long as it doesn't go beyond that, they at least bring back the status quo ante.

Some of them (like Josh Hawley) probably believe they can rewrite the law so that Section 230 can be selectively disapplied to (from?) just one or two companies they don't like, but if one of those companies is Twitter or Facebook or Youtube, that's billions of dollars of wealth wiped out with the stroke of a pen if it were ever signed into law. Hard to believe they would actually do that, but these are Trump Republicans, so who knows how far they would go to appease their master. Maybe they realize that they could never pass such a law, and that in turn removes any need for them to produce something useful or logical, legislatively? It would just be a "message bill" or something.

Or, if Trump-appeasement is the overriding consideration now, maybe they figure if they can get through the week he'll forget all of this by next Tuesday and be off on a new tantrum about some other thing. After all, at least half the people who are covering this in the media are treating it as a distraction anyway, to make people forget that we just passed the 100,000-dead mark in the Coronavirus pandemic. They're probably right, too.

[Poetlister]

The opinion at The Atlantic is that the real target is Zuckerberg, not Twitter.

I doubt that Trump draws much of a distinction. It's all part of the Silicon Valley soup, as far as he's concerned.

[el84]

FWIW, Trump has now tweeted that he wants to revoke "230," which could mean Section 230 but could also mean some other "230" entirely:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 3996870656

Still, if this isn't some sort of ruse, this means both major Presidential candidates are now on-record as saying they want to revoke Section 230. I'm still confident it will come to nothing in the near term, and it won't pass both houses of Congress in any event, but long-term this could be remembered as a red-letter day for Section 230 opponents. Joe Biden even reiterated his position on the issue today:

...Biden’s position on Section 230 remains unchanged. A spokesperson for the campaign told The Verge Friday that the former vice president maintains his position that the law should be revoked and that he would seek to propose legislation that would hold social media companies accountable for knowingly platforming falsehoods. Unlike Trump, Biden’s policies are meant to lead to more moderation of misinformation, rather than less.

Revoke Trump.

[Randy from Boise]

Section 230's biggest impact on WMF is probably helping to keep their insurance rates low.

If it is revoked, there will be more risk, and insurance rates will go through the ceiling.

I don't think whether the law stands or falls or is changed will make that much difference on the final product. We are all already ultimately responsible for our own edits with respect to libel law.

The blow would be crushing to YouTube, Facebook, and Internet Archive.

RfB

[Mason]

The blow would be crushing to YouTube, Facebook, and Internet Archive.

Using YouTube as an example, wouldn't they just be quicker to take things down when they receive a complaint?

No one's going to prevail in court against them if they immediately take down the material the plaintiff objected to, right?

They very well might automate the process if they haven't already.

[Poetlister]

Both Trump and Biden have criticized Big Tech’s favorite law — here’s what Section 230 says and why they want to change it

While Democrats have largely avoided claims of censorship by the tech companies, Section 230 has become a rare point of unification for political leaders from both parties who feel the industry has gotten too powerful and outgrown the need for its protections. In an interview with The New York Times editorial board published earlier this year, Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden said Section 230 “immediately should be revoked” for tech platforms including Facebook, which he said, “is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.”

CNBC

It is quite refreshing to see Democrats and Republicans agreeing on something.

[Johnny Au]

Well, even Google treats Twitter and Reddit in a special way. If a normal app has even mild nudity, it will be removed from the Google Play Store, yet Twitter and Reddit can have outright pornography. I hope they lose their special status, because they don't deserve it.

Google uses the ESRB rating for apps in North America. Twitter and Reddit are both Teen-rated (13+), while Wikipedia is Everyone-rated (6+)! All three already contain porn to some degree (and no, Michelangelo's David doesn't count as porn, as is proven in the E-rated game Animal Crossing: New Horizons, which contains a high-resolution model of the sculpture that can be zoomed in to view the sculpture's genitals in detail and the sculpture is part of the game as intended by the developers themselves (i.e., not user-generated)).

[Poetlister]

This will embarrass Wikipedians who think Wikipedia should be uncensored and therefore adults only. How is Commons rated?