GOP's latest attack on Section 230

[Poetlister]

More than 140 Zuckerberg-funded scientists call on Facebook to rein in Trump

More than 140 scientists funded by Mark Zuckerberg have said Facebook should not be letting Donald Trump use the social media platform to “spread both misinformation and incendiary statements”.

The researchers, who include more than 60 professors at leading US research institutions and one Nobel laureate, sent the Facebook CEO a letter on Saturday asking him to “consider stricter policies on misinformation and incendiary language that harms people”, especially during the current turmoil over racial injustice.

The letter calls the spread of “deliberate misinformation and divisive language” contrary to the researchers’ goals of using technology to prevent and eradicate disease, improve childhood education and reform the criminal justice system.

Guardian

Here is the letter.

[Daniel Brandt]

Trump is against Section 230, as noted in this thread. He recently made some sort of Executive Order regarding this. Joe Biden is strongly against Section 230 also. Something will happen soon in Congress regarding this. I think all of this activity is a Good Thing because Section 230 deserves to die.

How will it affect Wikipedia? It's hard to say, but at least it will prevent editors such as SlimVirgin from starting BLP stubs on people she doesn't like, as she did on me years ago. This alone will be a big improvement. Also, it will dramatically affect online providers such as Cloudflare. When FOSTA-SESTA became law on April 11, 2018, Cloudflare dumped a lot of "sex workers" who were using their service because that new law had one line in it to the effect that Section 230 did not apply. When Section 230 gets dumped more thoroughly, Cloudflare will have to disown a huge number of their customers, such as sites that sell stolen credit card information, and sites that specialize in DDoS and other types of illegal activity. Cloudflare founder and CEO Matthew Prince is a billionaire now since their recent IPO, according to Forbes. He's been selling off bits of his hefty chunk of stock lately, a few hundred thousand dollars worth at a time. Meanwhile, Cloudflare's stock keeps rising, but that doesn't mean much these days. Cloudflare fanboys aren't known for their good judgement.

As far as this board is concerned, I don't think the admins have to worry. They could easily delete posts about particular people or organizations if threatened with a lawsuit, once there is no longer any Section 230 to protect them. Maybe their hosting service would threaten them, which would be more inconvenient. However, this is not a big-traffic site. It could be run from almost any hosting server, or even from your bedroom on a cable connection, like I do with my two sites.

[Midsize Jake]

I just can't imagine they're going to completely repeal it, without "replacing" it, and thus let anybody sue any internet-based entity they want without restrictions. For one thing, the amount of money that would go into lobbying against that would be astronomical, which almost leads me to wonder if the threat itself is just a scheme by lobbyists to extract still more money from the tech industry. (Which I guess is why several of these companies have their own lobbyists.)

The way the Republicans want to do it (i.e., strip away company protections selectively, based on who criticizes Republicans the most) is clearly unconstitutional, though that won't stop them from trying. The Democrats, meanwhile, are much less serious about this, to the point where I don't believe they have a coherent plan at all. Biden himself has been the most vocal about it, presumably because he and his family have been the most victimized by right-wing fake news recently (and I'm not counting Hillary Clinton, obviously she'll always hold the all-time record), but even Uncle Joe doesn't have a plan, AFAIK.

Based on what I've seen thus far, most of the Democratic proposals involve setting up some sort of FCC Review Board to decide what specific posts advocate hate, violence, etc., and impose fines when sites won't remove them. That seems more reasonable than what the Republicans want to do, but I have to admit it could potentially be more disruptive, since it would probably allow for the targeting of more small sites.

Hopefully they can come up with something reasonably intelligent before something happens to force their hand. Obviously it's the US Government so all hope is in vain by definition, but that doesn't necessarily mean it can't happen.

[thekohser]

Sharing this Digital Trends story by Luke Dormehl (UK-based journalist / author / filmmaker), but linking to a Yahoo! version of the story, because of the overtly annoying advertisements on the former site.

If Section 230 gets killed, Wikipedia will die along with it
Digital Trends - Luke Dormehl
July 7, 2020

Revoking Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would change Wikipedia as we know it. And by “change,” we mean in the sense that a magnifying glass, the sun, and an eight-year-old kid hopped up on soda changes an ant colony.

Since President Donald Trump tweeted about a possible revocation of Section 230, the latest ramp-up in his war with social media companies, the tech world and its watchers have been buzzing about the ways in which this could fundamentally alter the internet. But although social media companies like Twitter may be Trump’s target, they’re far from the only ones who would be affected.

“[If we were to] live in a world where there is no Section 230 in the United States, that changes things drastically,” Sherwin Siy, the Wikimedia Foundation’s senior manager for public policy, told Digital Trends.

[Poetlister]

I don't know what Trump thinks of Wikipedia, but it's a reasonable bet that many of his supporters regard it as hopelessly biased to the left. They'd surely prefer Conservapedia, though presumably that too would be adversely affected if Section 230 is abolished.

[Ming]

Perhaps Trump is too stupid to realize that getting rid of section 230 would get him immediately ejected from Twitter and made persona non grata at every alternative venue which he doesn't personally own.

[Nemo]

Sharing this Digital Trends story by Luke Dormehl (UK-based journalist / author / filmmaker), but linking to a Yahoo! version of the story, because of the overtly annoying advertisements on the former site.

If Section 230 gets killed, Wikipedia will die along with it
Digital Trends - Luke Dormehl
July 7, 2020

Revoking Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would change Wikipedia as we know it. And by “change,” we mean in the sense that a magnifying glass, the sun, and an eight-year-old kid hopped up on soda changes an ant colony.

Since President Donald Trump tweeted about a possible revocation of Section 230, the latest ramp-up in his war with social media companies, the tech world and its watchers have been buzzing about the ways in which this could fundamentally alter the internet. But although social media companies like Twitter may be Trump’s target, they’re far from the only ones who would be affected.

“[If we were to] live in a world where there is no Section 230 in the United States, that changes things drastically,” Sherwin Siy, the Wikimedia Foundation’s senior manager for public policy, told Digital Trends.

Wouldn't simply forcing flagged edits on all articles; to ensure that no content goes "live" without first being vetted by admins solve the problem?

[Bezdomni]

Sharing this Digital Trends story by Luke Dormehl (UK-based journalist / author / filmmaker), but linking to a Yahoo! version of the story, because of the overtly annoying advertisements on the former site.

If Section 230 gets killed, Wikipedia will die along with it
Digital Trends - Luke Dormehl
July 7, 2020

Revoking Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would change Wikipedia as we know it. And by “change,” we mean in the sense that a magnifying glass, the sun, and an eight-year-old kid hopped up on soda changes an ant colony.

Since President Donald Trump tweeted about a possible revocation of Section 230, the latest ramp-up in his war with social media companies, the tech world and its watchers have been buzzing about the ways in which this could fundamentally alter the internet. But although social media companies like Twitter may be Trump’s target, they’re far from the only ones who would be affected.

“[If we were to] live in a world where there is no Section 230 in the United States, that changes things drastically,” Sherwin Siy, the Wikimedia Foundation’s senior manager for public policy, told Digital Trends.

Wouldn't simply forcing flagged edits on all articles; to ensure that no content goes "live" without first being vetted by admins solve the problem?

As long as said admins had provided ID to or were in the employ of the content provider, I imagine it would ensure that no content went live for which the content provider could not denounce the publisher.

Good to see former rebelz and arbz dropping in these days.



ps: Nemo. Sorry just to reply like that to your post without saying hello. Are you just any-nemo? Are you related to meta-nemo? It will be interesting to see what you can do. So far, most forks I've seen sort of get melted down into an occasional page nine tinkling sound in the google furnace. Do you have a plan?

[Midsize Jake]

Wouldn't simply forcing flagged edits on all articles; to ensure that no content goes "live" without first being vetted by admins solve the problem?

As long as said admins had provided ID to or were in the employ of the content provider, I imagine it would ensure that no content went live for which the content provider could not denounce the publisher.

Is "denounce" a typo in that sentence? I'm not quite getting that bit, particularly since Wikipedia would be deemed the publisher and I can't imagine any scenario in which it wouldn't be appropriate to denounce them.

Anyway, putting aside my previous post in this thread (which still applies), I actually think it would be fine to just turn on Flagged Revisions and continue on as normal. Sure, you could hire a bunch of paid admins to check every substantive edit, but paid admins can be compromised too (though it might cost more for the people doing the compromising). And either way, Flagged Revisions will probably take care of 99.99% of the problem as long as current standards are maintained — so, the real issues are that (1) standards are hard to maintain, and (2) Wikipedia has so much content and related activity that the other 0.01% would be enough to keep a WMF legal team quite busy year-round, especially if there were no indemnification for them at all. A few lawsuits would likely be unavoidable, but that's kind of the whole idea, really.

[Bezdomni]

When Nemo presses the publish button s.he is the publisher of the rēs pūblicātus nēminis. quod erat tautoslogoidum.

On the other hand, let's say Anyone Else accepts a revision. S.He is the publisher. Nemo can denounce Anyone Else if an Injured Party seeks a redressing down.

This seems like how personal responsibility would work.

quis rēs pūblicet? nemo!

ps: I speak Latin like Slavic sow. Hope this is clearer, Jake.

[Midsize Jake]

When Nemo presses the publish button s.he is the publisher of the rēs pūblicātus nēminis. quod erat tautoslogoidum.

On the other hand, let's say Anyone Else accepts a revision. S.He is the publisher. Nemo can denounce Anyone Else if an Injured Party seeks a redressing down.

This seems like how personal responsibility would work.

That's how it works in reality. In Section 230-land, the entity hosting and/or operating the website (usually the domain owner) is the publisher, or rather, "service provider." Nemo and Anyone Else are "content providers." The publisher/service provider is one who's indemnified, unless the publisher is also the content provider and — according to later interpretations in case law — that same publisher+content provider isn't simply modifying or deleting the content in order to reduce harm to kids, i.e., the public.

Meanwhile, the idea of Anyone Else becoming responsible for Nemo's revision by accepting it, or alternatively just failing to change it, has obviously been fundamental to the Wikipedia problem since Day One — but US courts have usually held that inaction doesn't imply complicity, and in a libel case I suspect the same principle might also apply for tacit approval.

I'm not a lawyer though, so don't take my word for it. However, I can practically guarantee that if a plaintiff with standing in a US court were to find out the identities of all the persons who edited an article on WP without removing clearly libelous content, that plaintiff's lawyers would try to find out how much money each of them had and then just sue the one(s) with the most money.

[Poetlister]

Perhaps Trump is too stupid to realize that getting rid of section 230 would get him immediately ejected from Twitter and made persona non grata at every alternative venue which he doesn't personally own.

That's easy; the relevant legislation could include a clause saying that he personally has a legal right to have a Twitter account and that Twitter is debarred from flagging his posts as inaccurate or misleading.

[Poetlister]

I actually think it would be fine to just turn on Flagged Revisions and continue on as normal.

If you look at for example Wikibooks, where all revisions are flagged, the people approving them rarely have much of a clue about their accuracy. It would stop obvious blatant vandalism, but a great deal would still get through.

[Daniel Brandt]

The Section 230 fuss is increasing. Search news.google.com for "section 230" and see for yourself. Too bad Seigenthaler is no longer around to add to the discussion.

[Midsize Jake]

The Section 230 fuss is increasing. Search news.google.com for "section 230" and see for yourself. Too bad Seigenthaler is no longer around to add to the discussion.

Always good to see you here, DB!

I was just about to get around to posting about this myself. The current fuss-increase is due to a new bill in the US Senate called the Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act. There's a semi-decent article about it on CNET, which AFAIK doesn't have a paywall.

The main thing they want to impose is a so-called "objectively reasonable belief" standard for content moderation, which basically means that if someone (like, say, oh I dunno, Donald Trump) posts something false, the site/platform could have its Section 230 protections revoked for taking it down — as long as a court thinks it's "reasonable" to think that the person (i.e., Trump) didn't intend to post false information, maliciously or otherwise.

What's much more significant for Wikipedia, though, is this bit (emphasis mine):

It proposes to replace the original act's term "otherwise objectionable" with more specific terms such as "promoting terrorism," "unlawful" content, and content that promotes "self-harm." The bill would also modify the definition of "information content provider" to include instances of people editorializing or modifying content created or developed by another person or entity beyond changes to the content's appearance.

People are going to overlook this part of it, partially because the intent isn't obvious just from a cursory reading. But from Wikipedia's perspective, what the Republicans are hoping to do there is to make any Wikipedia user who substantively edits an article just as responsible for it as any other Wikipedia editor who substantively edits that same article. (A few posts above this one I referred to this as "inaction [at least by someone making an edit] implies complicity.") In many, if not most, cases that would have the effect of increasing the defendant pool for any libel suits brought against Wikipedia editors, whether or not those potential defendants actually "touched" the libelous content (or, I suppose, even if they tried to remove the libelous content). Some of those potential defendants might have thought they were safe enough to divulge their IRL identities on WP as long as they never made any libelous edits, but in the unlikely event that this bill is ever signed into law, perhaps they will have been wrong about that.

Presumably, Wikipedia's response to this would be to eliminate page histories altogether, but again, it's unlikely to become law.

[Poetlister]

Presumably, Wikipedia's response to this would be to eliminate page histories altogether, but again, it's unlikely to become law.

Surely that would violate the CC licensing requirements. The attribution is a bit farcical ("I added that sentence six months ago, sine when there have been 500 edits to the srticle, some affecting my sentence") but it's there in principle.

[Daniel Brandt]

I think Congress should pass a one-line law that declares Section 230 of the 1996 law null and void. Then they can count the bodies a year or two later, after seeing what the effect was of stripping Wikipedia, Cloudflare, etc. of immunity. This thing is too complicated to handle in a single pass.

For example, what about secret editors on Wikipedia like SlimVirgin -- is she accountable as a person for the articles she starts? How about the ones she edits? (Disregard the fact that she's in Canada.) Is Jimbo responsible because he expressed total support for her? Is the Wikimedia Foundation responsible, because they tell their engineers how to handle the archiving tasks? Is the Wayback Machine (Internet Archive) obligated to strip out their files of any biographies? Would that make Hollywood movie stars mad or happy?

What about Wikipediocracy with its two super-sysops who have not been publicly identified? What would their hosting provider do if they got a bunch of complaints?

You see, it's just too complicated. Start with a new law that has a one-sentence removal of Section 230.

[Poetlister]

Americans often try to extradite people in other countries who break American law, and sometimes succeed. No doubt the WMF would hand over SlimVirgin's IP addresses if asked. And there are people who know who for certain who she is.

[Vigilant]

Americans often try to extradite people in other countries who break American law, and sometimes succeed. No doubt the WMF would hand over SlimVirgin's IP addresses if asked. And there are people who know who for certain who she is.

Any nation state intelligence service that wanted to penetrate the WMF's servers would have no trouble.

[Zoloft]

<snip>
What about Wikipediocracy with its two super-sysops who have not been publicly identified? What would their hosting provider do if they got a bunch of complaints?
<snip>

As you well know, I go by my real name, and even have showed up to meetings. You had me on your 'dox' board once, although you picked somebody else's photo, which, just to let you know, was both hilarious and pitiful, since you got it off my Facebook account.

So how ya been? For a long time I thought you were dead, and I was happy to see you come back. What do you think of Cloudflare and the Internet Archive getting all chummy?

[Daniel Brandt]

The hype and excitement on Twitter about the deal between Cloudflare and Wayback makes it sound like Cloudflare has just taken over the entire Internet. But if you dig deeper, it's more like Wayback has taken Cloudflare for a ride!
https://theregister.com/2020/09/17/inte ... loudflare/

A plague on both of them.

And for good measure, Wayback has not taken down my Wikipedia bios. There are several from 2006, while the later ones are for that musician namesake in Germany. I think this is probably the Wikimedia Foundation's fault; they're too busy counting their money from donations. It took 14 AfD's to get my bio deleted, but the Foundation doesn't monitor stuff like this, and doesn't act even if someone explains things to them.

[Zoloft]

<snip>

And for good measure, Wayback has not taken down my Wikipedia bios. There are several from 2006, while the later ones are for that musician namesake in Germany. I think this is probably the Wikimedia Foundation's fault; they're too busy counting their money from donations. It took 14 AfD's to get my bio deleted, but the Foundation doesn't monitor stuff like this, and doesn't act even if someone explains things to them.

Well, that's awful. My stance on Wikipedia bios is about the same as yours. People should be able to opt-out unless you're a public official or truly notable, not Wikipedia notable. Legal definition 'public figure' notable.

[Poetlister]

<snip>
What about Wikipediocracy with its two super-sysops who have not been publicly identified? What would their hosting provider do if they got a bunch of complaints?
<snip>

If you mean Mr Midsize, several people, such as Zoloft, Greybeard and Gregory Kohs, must know his real name.

[Midsize Jake]

If you mean Mr Midsize, several people, such as Zoloft, Greybeard and Gregory Kohs, must know his real name.

True, but I'm only going to start worrying when non-regulars find out my street address and organize an army to penetrate my 20-foot-high walled compound. And if anything, I'm even more of a non-entity now IRL than I was when I started Wikipedia-bashing 15 years ago.

Anyhoo, back to the topic at hand, various internet-user advocacy groups have started to come out against the Republicans' latest Section 230 attack bill — here's the Internet Association, and NetChoice, for example.

It's at least slightly interesting that Trump has been tweeting out that the whole thing should be revoked, while the Congressional Republicans simply want to make it more of a propaganda-protection tool. Obviously Trump hasn't really studied the issue and can only think in terms of easily-understood pithy slogans, but given how incredibly cowardly the Congressional Republicans have been lately, I don't think we can dismiss the idea that Trump will get his way if he wins the election.

So, that puts us in the extraordinary position of seeing our very own Daniel B., represented here by a Vladimir Lenin avatar, agreeing with Donald "Hitler Wannabe" Trump on how this should be handled.

Simply put, the Republicans want to deny S230 protections to any platform — including Wikipedia, it would seem — on which anyone dares to delete, edit, or place "warning tags" on whatever alternative-reality BS the GOP decides to post and promote. The Democrats instead want to deny those protections only to platforms that fail to adequately restrict hate speech, violent threats, etc., and would probably only apply that denial-of-protection in extreme cases. In the Pre-Trump Era one might not have thought these two objectives would be diametrically opposed, but of course we're no longer in that era, which is why this has no chance of passing.

However: A Supreme Court with a 6-3 right-wing-extremist majority could theoretically strike down the whole thing, maybe even the entire Communications Decency Act. They couldn't substantively change the law, but they could eliminate it, forcing Congress to either rewrite it in a way that's more to the far-right's liking, or just let the whole thing ride with nobody having any S230 protections at all and just see what happens. This also seems highly unlikely, but more likely than the current bill passing (IMO).

Finally, as for eliminating page histories, I've since had a look at the licensing situation and I agree that this would be extremely problematic for them. So if either of the two things mentioned above actually happen, I'm thinking their first move might be to leave the USA for some other country, most likely the UK or Canada.

[Midsize Jake]

I might also add that even people who are paid to understand what's going on with this bill are failing miserably at it. For example, the headline writer at Insurance Journal apparently thought their article meant the exact opposite of what it actually said. (Maybe somebody should get an archive link for this, since they might change it if the author ever bothers to check.)

[Midsize Jake]

Just as a quick update, Sen. Lindsey "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That" Graham has sponsored a bill in the US Senate combining his earlier CASE Act (aka, the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019) with the Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act, resulting in something he's calling the "Online Content Policy Modernization Act" (article in TechDirt). The idea of Lindsey Graham being involved in internet-related legislation in any way whatsoever is of course absolutely horrifying, but this is 2020.

Yesterday, Bill "I Was a Fascist Before You Were a Fascist" Barr and the Justice Department got into the act, producing a document entitled "Ramseyer Draft Legislative Reforms to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act" (original Word Document; article in Ars Technica). This is probably the document to refer to if anyone wants to know what they're actually attempting here, since it's what the resulting law code would look like (rather than just a set of editing instructions for the WestLaw people), and it seems to be their entire laundry list.

Most importantly for our purposes, they're redefining the all-important "information content provider" terminology thusly (added wording in red):

(3) INFORMATION CONTENT PROVIDER. The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service. Being responsible in whole or in part for the creation or development of information includes, but is not limited to, instances in which a person or entity solicits, comments upon, funds, or affirmatively and substantively contributes to, modifies, or alters information provided by another person or entity.

So, there goes Wikipedia, along with at least half of the social-media world in general. Hooray!

To me, all this activity suggests two possibilities that are not mutually exclusive: First, they might try to actually get a vote on this in the short term, either because the election is dominating the headlines and they think they can minimize the PR blowback (i.e., making this the ideal time) or because they don't think Trump will succeed in winning and/or stealing the election and they want their version at least voted on before the Democrats take over in January. Second, maybe they're really, really worried that Facebook and Twitter will circumvent their propaganda efforts, and they're taking a few shots "across the bow" to intimidate them and ensure non-interference.

[Daniel Brandt]

Here's a fairly frivilous mainstream piece about the role of Section 230:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/section- ... 44905.html

Here's a 5-meg PDF copy of the Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990, which has names, salaries, and projects of the WMF. It seems like they're having a good time doing almost nothing except counting their money! This covers the 2015-2017 period, which is the most recent one that I could easily find:
http://wikipedia-sucks.org:83/wiki.pdf (5,293,495 bytes)

[Poetlister]

It seems like they're having a good time doing almost nothing except counting their money!

That's a good thing, isn't it? When the WMF are actively interventionist, it usually causes a problem.

[Edit: Fix typo]

[Bezdomni]

Here's a 5-meg PDF copy of the Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990, which has names, salaries, and projects of the WMF. It seems like they're having a good time doing almost nothing except counting their money! This covers the 2015-2017 period, which is the most recent one that I could easily find:
http://wikipedia-sucks.org:83/wiki.pdf (5,293,495 bytes)

Hmm... is this a new project Daniel? (The port number makes me think this might be your site.)

You can find the 2018-2019 990 on the foundation website. Minassian is still pulling down the big bucks, but never really breathes a word about his participation at the WMF (here he is being interviewed about "additionalism" and characteristically only speaks about the CF).

A new contractor pulling down 6 figures is Trilogy Interactive. They have some interesting 2020 clients. (Chuck Schumer, Michael Bloomberg, Washington governor Jay Inslee, etc.)

(I had to wait out a rain-shower in the office this afternoon, so I figured I'd have a look...)

[Midsize Jake]

A new contractor pulling down 6 figures is Trilogy Interactive. They have some interesting 2020 clients. (Chuck Schumer, Michael Bloomberg, Washington governor Jay Inslee, etc.)

Not to mention other scary librul groups like the Atlanta Falcons and the San Francisco Giants...

I mean, you could just link to their website, since it's on their default page and it's not like they're hiding their client list. (Well, I guess they're hiding Bloomberg, but you can hardly blame them for that.) Anyway, if you go there and hover over the Wikipedia logo, it says they "design ad campaigns that stay true to a brand that embodies openness and community." So they're not really telling us specifically what ads and what-not they're doing for them, but there's a page on Meta that says they do their "fundraising email campaigns." So my guess would be that this is the company that spams you on a regular basis if you're ever foolish enough to get on the WMF's donor mailing list.

Nevertheless,

[Midsize Jake]

Here's another highly critical piece about the DoJ's version, from AboveTheLaw.com:

Finally, the new bill would have a whole section to define what is meant by “good faith” in content moderation, which is basically that you have to clearly delineate in your policies what is allowed and what is not, and your moderation must match that. This is, of course, impossible. It is written by people who have never had to moderate content at all. It is written by people who don’t understand how content moderation is not black and white, but often vast areas of gray where judgment calls need to be made. It is written by people, in bad faith, assuming that all users of a website are acting in good faith. So many of these attempts to reform Section 230 refuse to take into account that people will seek to game the system. And restricting sites’ ability to stop those gaming the system is a recipe for disaster.

But, hey, this is Bill Barr’s DOJ and Donald Trump’s White House. A policy proposal that is a recipe for disaster, as well as unconstitutional, seems to be par for the course.

Putting aside what this would mean for the moderators here on Wikipediocracy, the situation on Wikipedia strikes me as far more problematic. Wikipedia already has more rules and "guidelines" than just about any non-governmental entity in the world, and this would force a fairly significant expansion of them. WP admins are already unpopular enough as it is.

It's easy to just shrug this off as something that will never pass, but right now the USA is on the knife-edge of becoming a failed state, if it isn't one already. Trump is now openly talking about not just stealing the election, but quite literally ignoring it — for all we know, this could be a linchpin of their dissidence-suppression strategy.

[Bezdomni]

A new contractor pulling down 6 figures is Trilogy Interactive. They have some interesting 2020 clients. (Chuck Schumer, Michael Bloomberg, Washington governor Jay Inslee, etc.)

[...] there's a page on Meta that says they do their "fundraising email campaigns." [...]

Thanks for pointing that page out. I guess that in the previous 990s they just didn't make the list of the top 5 contractors (on page 58) because back then there was so much more money being spent on legal services (Jones Day + Cooley, LLP = $2m) and on infrastructure (Equinix) rather than on just their core activities of fundraising, PR, and leadership training. It does look like Trilogy Interactive brings in quite a bit more money than they bill.

I guess they're hiding Bloomberg, but you can hardly blame them for that.
[...]
Nevertheless,

Sorry for recklessly steering your thread into the weeds, Jake.



Perhaps future 990s will show a renewed interest in spending on legal & lobbying services based on the concerns you're raising. After all, they're getting their ontology equity for free.

[Zoloft]

I'm suspecting if Section 230 gets emasculated, that at a mimimum this site would go members-only view on everything.

[Vigilant]

I'm suspecting if Section 230 gets emasculated, that at a mimimum this site would go members-only view on everything.

The House of Representatives is going to vote for this?

I think not.

[Zoloft]

I'm suspecting if Section 230 gets emasculated, that at a mimimum this site would go members-only view on everything.

The House of Representatives is going to vote for this?

I think not.

Probably not. Also, lobbyists.

[Midsize Jake]

Probably not. Also, lobbyists.

Not to mention their own supporters, once they realize what the effect(s) would be. That's why I suggested "up-thread" that this is all just an effort to intimidate — and not just the Twitter and Facebook executives who sometimes "tag" Trump's posts, but also anyone who makes a habit of retweeting Trump with a nasty comment attached. Let's not forget that some people in the US, particularly those who didn't pass their 8th-grade civics class, may not realize that "a bill proposed in the Senate" doesn't already have the force of law.

What's more, I don't see anything in the amending language that would differentiate between content that's readily available to the public and content that isn't. That would probably include a members-only forum for example, or maybe, I dunno, a secret chatroom for domestic terrorists to discuss their plans for violence against protesters, or even against voters who don't "look right" to them.

Meanwhile, rumor has it that yet another bill is about to be submitted by a conservative Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin (WV), that would add a Section 230 "drug-trafficking carve-out" to the "sex-trafficking carve-out" that was included in the earlier SESTA/FOSTA legislation, which is now law. I doubt there are many people who use Twitter, Facebook, or Wikipedia to sell unprescribed synthetic opioids, but there are probably a few sites out there that would have to shut down.

[Vigilant]

Probably not. Also, lobbyists.

Not to mention their own supporters, once they realize what the effect(s) would be. That's why I suggested "up-thread" that this is all just an effort to intimidate — and not just the Twitter and Facebook executives who sometimes "tag" Trump's posts, but also anyone who makes a habit of retweeting Trump with a nasty comment attached. Let's not forget that some people in the US, particularly those who didn't pass their 8th-grade civics class, may not realize that "a bill proposed in the Senate" doesn't already have the force of law.

What's more, I don't see anything in the amending language that would differentiate between content that's readily available to the public and content that isn't. That would probably include a members-only forum for example, or maybe, I dunno, a secret chatroom for domestic terrorists to discuss their plans for violence against protesters, or even against voters who don't "look right" to them.

Meanwhile, rumor has it that yet another bill is about to be submitted by a conservative Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin (WV), that would add a Section 230 "drug-trafficking carve-out" to the "sex-trafficking carve-out" that was included in the earlier SESTA/FOSTA legislation, which is now law. I doubt there are many people who use Twitter, Facebook, or Wikipedia to sell unprescribed synthetic opioids, but there are probably a few sites out there that would have to shut down.

If they make their money facilitating felonious conduct, I suspect section 230 is the least of their concerns.

[Poetlister]

I'm suspecting if Section 230 gets emasculated, that at a mimimum this site would go members-only view on everything.

The House of Representatives is going to vote for this?

I think not.

Probably not. Also, lobbyists.

Obviously, once Congress realises the potential impact on this site, they will recoil in horror and reject it unanimously.

[Bezdomni]

Comrade GD hasn't had much link-love here lately and that's too bad: WMF seeks Director of Disinformation program.

[Mason]

Facebook and Twitter restrict controversial New York Post story on Joe Biden, sparking ire on the right

Trump tweeted that it was “terrible” that the social media companies “took down” the article – in fact, it was restricted, not removed – and renewed his calls to “repeal section 230”, a measure that keeps website hosts from being held responsible for content posted. Ironically, repealing section 230 would require Twitter to take down more content, including many of Trump’s tweets.

[Poetlister]

Supreme Court Declines to Review Case on Section 230 (For Now)

The Supreme Court declined yesterday to review the scope of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which gives online platforms immunity from civil liability for third-party content on their services. Justice Clarence Thomas released a statement agreeing with the court's decision to not hear the Section 230 case, known as MalwareBytes Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC. But he argued that courts have interpreted the provision to confer far more immunity to online platforms than the law requires, and therefore that the Supreme Court should reexamine the issue when a better case presents itself.

Lawfare

[Poetlister]

Trump’s Section 230 reform is repudiation in disguise

President Donald Trump and former Vice President Biden differ on most issues, but a new proposal from Trump’s Department of Justice reveals one point of agreement: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act needs to go. Biden has openly called for its repeal. While the proposal purports to remedy flaws in the statute, its text shows that Trump has come to bury Section 230, not reform it. And though his Justice Department is advocating what it describes as reform, Trump made his personal opinion clear in a tweet on Tuesday: “REPEAL SECTION 230!!!”

Brookings

[Midsize Jake]

Justice Clarence Thomas released a statement agreeing with the court's decision to not hear the Section 230 case, known as MalwareBytes Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC. But he argued that courts have interpreted the provision to confer far more immunity to online platforms than the law requires, and therefore that the Supreme Court should reexamine the issue when a better case presents itself.

Shit, has he been reading my posts?

I mean, I don't agree with Clarence Thomas about much at all, but at the very least this is a guy who, like me, understands what a disappointment it can be to get a soft drink with pubic hair floating around in it. That has to count for something.

[Midsize Jake]

These guys don't waste time! Within 48 hours of SCOTUS declining the MalwareBytes case, the Trump FCC is now taking their shot a it, with just days to go before the election:

In a tweet, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai indicated he will move forward with a rulemaking to "clarify" Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which currently acts as a legal shield for tech companies' handling of user generated content.

The move could inflame a national debate over the law, which has been spurred by numerous conservative complaints that tech platforms are systematically biased against right-wing views. The tech industry has strenuously denied the claim.

[FCC Chief Commissioner Ajit] Pai said the FCC's general counsel had informed him that the agency has the legal authority to issue regulations interpreting Section 230.

Well, if the FCC General Counsel says so, I guess we can just ignore whatever Congress and the Supreme Court said about it.

I guess they must be pretty well convinced they're going to lose on November 3rd — even so, they'll have to hurry because there's usually a 60-day comment period on new Federal regulations. Maybe they can waive that requirement, "just this once."

[Poetlister]

The Section 230 fight Congress should be having

On Oct. 28, the CEOs of Facebook, Google and Twitter are scheduled to receive another verbal beating on Capitol Hill.

After similar encounters in recent years, the ritual of lawmakers attacking senior executives from Silicon Valley has become familiar. The imminent hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee is striking, though, for two reasons: It comes just days before a bitterly contested national election, when one would expect senators’ attention to be elsewhere. And the legislators’ cudgel of choice will be an obscure statutory provision known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

Meanwhile, President Trump has been tweeting out demands for the repeal of Section 230, the law that protects internet companies from most lawsuits concerning user posts. And no fewer than 15 bills have been introduced in Congress that would curtail Section 230 in various ways.

All of which raises the question: what exactly is going on here?

The Hill

[Poetlister]

Section 230 will be on the chopping block at the next big tech hearing

It looks like we’re in for another big tech CEO hearing. The Senate Commerce Committee voted Thursday to move forward with subpoenas for Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Alphabet. The unusual decision to subpoena the social media chief executives adds yet another politically volatile event to the schedule in the run-up to the most contentious election in modern U.S. history.

The hearing will focus on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the key law that shields online platforms from legal liability for the content their users create.

Techcrunch

[Vigilant]

These guys don't waste time! Within 48 hours of SCOTUS declining the MalwareBytes case, the Trump FCC is now taking their shot a it, with just days to go before the election:

In a tweet, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai indicated he will move forward with a rulemaking to "clarify" Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which currently acts as a legal shield for tech companies' handling of user generated content.

The move could inflame a national debate over the law, which has been spurred by numerous conservative complaints that tech platforms are systematically biased against right-wing views. The tech industry has strenuously denied the claim.

[FCC Chief Commissioner Ajit] Pai said the FCC's general counsel had informed him that the agency has the legal authority to issue regulations interpreting Section 230.

Well, if the FCC General Counsel says so, I guess we can just ignore whatever Congress and the Supreme Court said about it.

I guess they must be pretty well convinced they're going to lose on November 3rd — even so, they'll have to hurry because there's usually a 60-day comment period on new Federal regulations. Maybe they can waive that requirement, "just this once."

The FCC is about to realize they've awoken a giant and filled it with terrible resolve.

[Midsize Jake]

The FCC is about to realize they've awoken a giant and filled it with terrible resolve.

The John Oliver Show...?

You'd think the FCC would have upgraded their servers by now, but these are Trump people, so there's a good chance they've outsourced all their IT operations to some random teenage kids in Macedonia.

[Poetlister]

Trump vs. Big Tech: Everything you need to know about Section 230 and why everyone hates it

What is Section 230? The Communications Decency Act is an obscure law passed by Congress in 1996 that has profoundly shaped today’s internet. ...

Section 230 has critics on both sides of the aisle. Democrats and Republicans generally agree that social media platforms should be held more accountable for how they police content, and they've introduced a number of bills, none of which have gained traction on Capitol Hill.

USA Today

[Poetlister]

Section 230 and online extremism

HOUSE TAKES ON THE AMPLIFICATION OF EXTREMISM ONLINE — A House Energy and Commerce hearing today will zero in on how social media platforms not only enable but in some cases serve to augment radical and extreme rhetoric online. “Throughout our nation’s history, we have seen extremism undermine public faith in our institutions, incite violence, sow division, and spread hate speech,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), chair of the consumer protection subcommittee hosting the session, is expected to say in her opening remarks. But, she’ll add, “What is different today is the way social media algorithms can amplify hate speech.”

POLITICO

Sorry, I missed this. It's a few weeks old now, but still relevant.