Section 230 is vital to free speech on the internet, and its critics are often misguided or wrong about the law.
Why repealing or weakening Section 230 is a very bad idea
Tag: Communications Decency Act
The Supreme Court Could Destroy Everything Good About The Internet
Next Week, The Supreme Court Could Destroy Everything Good About The Internet
This is the thing that so many haters of Section 230 don’t understand. They seem to think that getting rid of it will somehow benefit speech. But, it will not. It will benefit government officials attempting to control speech.
Related:
If You Don’t Want EU Style Censorship To Take Over The Internet, Support Section 230
from the the-eu-approach-is-dangerous dept
Fri, Jan 6th 2023 10:41am – Mike MasnickLast summer, I mocked the EU a bit for setting up a new office in Silicon Valley, and sending an official here to “liaise with Silicon Valley companies affected by EU tech regulation,” noting how it felt weird to have EU internet police setting up shop in Silicon Valley. Given that, I was a bit surprised that the new office invited me to “moderate” a panel discussion last month about the Digital Services Act (DSA), a bill I have regularly criticized and which I think is going to be dangerous for free speech on the internet.
If You Don’t Want EU Style Censorship To Take Over The Internet, Support Section 230
Related:
EARN IT Act Will Make The Internet Worse For Everyone By Undermining Privacy And Security
To save the children, we must destroy everything. That’s the reality of the EARN IT Act. I mean, you can get some sort of sense of what you’re in store for just by reading the actual words behind the extremely labored acronym: Eliminating Abuse and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act. Whew. It’s a mouthful. And, given the name, it seems like this would be Congress putting funding towards supporting moderation efforts that target abusive content.
EARN IT Act Will Make The Internet Worse For Everyone By Undermining Privacy And Security
Related:
Senator Klobuchar uses Paul Pelosi attack to call for internet regulation
Senator Amy Klobuchar said she doesn’t Trust Elon Musk to run Twitter. She also slammed social media companies for profiting from amplifying “misinformation” and made some statements about internet regulations that completely ignore the First Amendment.
Senator Klobuchar uses Paul Pelosi attack to call for internet regulation
Related:
If Musk Completes His Twitter Takeover, His Fans Might Want To Start Supporting Section 230
At this point, it seems exceptionally likely that Elon Musk will own Twitter within a few weeks. Because nothing is predictable in this saga, you never know, but the odds are that by Halloween Twitter will be Muskville. We’ll have plenty of time to talk about what that means, but in our post about Musk’s abrupt about-face, we joked that the takeover might come just in time for the Supreme Court to hold Twitter liable for any terrorist organizations who use the site and then go kill people in terrorist attacks.
If Musk Completes His Twitter Takeover, His Fans Might Want To Start Supporting Section 230
Biden doubles down on demanding Big Tech censor “hate”
Some of the world’s biggest tech companies and their social media platforms are ramping up censorship policies, once again under – this time public – pressure from the White House, as President Biden urged them to show accountability for what he said was spreading of hate and fueling of violence.
Biden doubles down on demanding Big Tech censor “hate”
Related:
How Government Officials Bully Social Media Companies Into Censorship
A new Cato report sheds light on “jawboning,” or attempts by state actors “to sway the decisions of private platforms and limit the publication of disfavored speech.”
How Government Officials Bully Social Media Companies Into Censorship
White House Releases Performatively Ridiculous ‘Principles’ For ‘Tech Platform Accountability’ That Include Removing Section 230
from the last-minute-homework dept
Fri, Sep 9th 2022 09:50am – Mike Masnick
During the 2020 campaign, there were a few times when candidate Joe Biden insisted he wanted to get rid of Section 230 entirely, though he made it clear he had no idea what Section 230 actually did. When I wrote articles highlighting all of this, I had some Biden supporters (even folks who worked on his campaign) reach out to me to say not to worry about it, that Biden wasn’t fully briefed on 230, and that if he became President, more knowledgeable people would be tasked to work on stuff, and the 230 stuff wouldn’t be an issue. I didn’t believe it at the time, and it turns out I was correct.
White House Releases Performatively Ridiculous ‘Principles’ For ‘Tech Platform Accountability’ That Include Removing Section 230
Doesn’t matter who’s in charge, they both want to cancel each other and censor whatever they determine is disinformation, whether it’s domestic or foreign policy!
Related:
The Supreme Court Already Explained Why California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Is Unconstitutional
from the must-we-always-relive-the-past? dept
Fri, Sep 2nd 2022 09:40am – Mike Masnick
In July of 1995, Time Magazine published one of its most regrettable stories ever. The cover just read “CYBERPORN” with the subhead reading: “EXCLUSIVE A new study shows how pervasive and wild it really is. Can we protect our kids—and free speech?” The author of that piece, Philip Elmer-Dewitt later admitted that it was his “worst” story “by far.”
The Supreme Court Already Explained Why California’s Age Appropriate Design Code Is Unconstitutional
Previously:
Why Is A British Baroness Drafting California Censorship Laws?
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 
You must be logged in to post a comment.