First, it engages in content-based discrimination. If passed, it'd face immediate First Amendment challenges. It's exceedingly hard to pass a law that discriminates based upon the content of speech.
Second, it's trying to overwrite parts of Section 230 and seems, at least on its face, as blatantly violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
"There's no question that this would target conduct immune under federal law—and, in fact, if [Section] 230 were repealed nobody could ever be liable under this law (since it only reaches immune conduct)," Cohen wrote. In other words, the North Dakota bill is "incredibly stupid," he wrote.
This is a pretty biased take from that random person on Twitter that ArsTechnica is quoting (this is all sourced from just this person's tweets). The proposed bill has value in terms of gauging legislative support, inviting copycat bills, in terms of building momentum across states, and ultimately leading to a better piece of legislation that meaningfully protects citizens from big tech censorship. It doesn't have to be viable or "succeed" in the first iteration. You see this tactic (passing something that has no viability) all the time from legislators and activists that are left-leaning in states like California/Oregon/Washington, and now right-leaning states' politicians are adopting the same strategy as well.
Why do people want to repeal 230? It would make any site with user generated content completely neutered and things like Parler or gab would be sued to oblivion immediately
I think it’s mostly been because they’ve been fed a lot false narrative about what section 230 is. It’s been circulating that 230 somehow is allowing companies like Twitter and Facebook to censor whom they wish, and that is resulting in some kind of repression of conservative viewpoints (in the US).
I don’t think people (including those who have been pushing for it’s repeal) understand the consequences of its elimination.
Section 230 does allow companies to censor who they wish on their sites.
Section 230 provides that sites have no liability for user content, and they have no liability for moderating user content, subject to some limited exceptions for certain types of prohibited content, or prohibited moderation.
With existing case law, in my mind repealing section 230 without replacement would mean going back to the old standard, which was more or less don't moderate and have no liability for user content, or moderate perfectly, because you are liable for content your moderation missed. You would probably also have some liability to users whose content you moderated off, but I don't know that I've seen a case with those specifics.
“Repeal section 230” is a rallying cry kind of like “defund the police” - it’s not the desired end state, but a statement that the status quo is unacceptable and pointing to a major reason why. It’s just another example of sound bite politics.
> “Repeal section 230” is a rallying cry kind of like “defund the police” - it’s not the desired end state
Well, neither states an end state, only an action, but “defund the police” is both exact and literal as to what is sought, so if you are saying “repeal section 230” is not, then the comparison is poorly chosen.
I do not think this is really true, the proposal published by Bill Barr's DOJ did not call it a repeal but if you examine the actual legal contents of it it wasn't a reform at all [1].
> On the whole, the Justice Department initiative is worse than an outright repeal of Section 230. It invites internet firms to chase an increasingly elusive quarry of immunity for third-party content while exposing them to a wider range of legal liability.
To quote President Trump, REPEAL SECTION 230!!! [2]. It's not really called sound bite politics if somebody consistently keeps saying something and also tries to do something about it.
Which people? The informed political factions that want to repeal, reform, or revise 230 have different goals from each other (and, on some cases, different goals than the ones they use to sell the idea to their followers.)
Without 230 you wouldn't be able to comment anywhere on the net. Where all content has to be reviewed and accepted. I don't see how this is going to reduce censorship. If anything it helps big content companies silence opinion.
I like the idea myself. Either everybody gets free speech or nobody does, the law can be amended to force accommodation of unpopular speech or it can be torn down so that everyone is equally silenced. I'm well passed letting millionaire sjw children do whatever they want.
You have freedom of speech. Make your own platform. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of social and business repercussions by others. You don't get to use a private companies business to forcefully host your content.
Repealing 230 means you don't get an opinion on the net anymore. The threat of legal repercussions are a lot more censoring than twitter. Content will still be made by companies and they'll still continue whatever information manipulation they're up to.
Perhaps it's not the 'sjw children'. Maybe it's that your position is wrong and others arent going to put up with it. There's social repercussions the same as anywhere else.
This isn't as strange conceptually as you make it sound. Power companies can't legally cut off electricity to consumers that they deem "malicious", even if they're violent actual neo-nazis or tankies, let alone the infinitely lower bar you're using.
What's under discussion is whether "the new public square" of Twitter/Facebook/et al constitute the same manner of oligopolistically-provided service that everyone has a right to.
Power companies (1) get paid by their users, and (2) are heavily - and sensibly - regulated utilities. They are understood to be companies that operate in a very different business environment from the majority of other businesses. That is what also gives them the ability to place their equipment on other people's private property.
And remember that a power company can cut off power to people if they are intentionally attempting to disrupt the power system, or simply not paying.
Neo nazis are not using the service to degrade the service of others and cause serious harm using electricity. If you somehow found a way to use electricity in a way that ruined it for the rest of your street you would get shut down pretty fast
It doesn't seem like this bill requires social networks to provide service to people in North Dakota, so due to the strength of the networking effect, if an inherently flawed law like this were passed I'd imagine that by IP blocking North Dakota users you could get the constituents to request their law makers to revert the bill immediately.
There's no market for a social network just for people in North Dakota, so North Dakota doesn't really have any leverage in situations like this.
Readit News
First, it engages in content-based discrimination. If passed, it'd face immediate First Amendment challenges. It's exceedingly hard to pass a law that discriminates based upon the content of speech.
Second, it's trying to overwrite parts of Section 230 and seems, at least on its face, as blatantly violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
I don't see this going anywhere.
Deleted Comment
To what ends? Idk- but I'd say interpretation of the "good-faith" aspect of section 230 is ripe for review.
I don’t think people (including those who have been pushing for it’s repeal) understand the consequences of its elimination.
Section 230 provides that sites have no liability for user content, and they have no liability for moderating user content, subject to some limited exceptions for certain types of prohibited content, or prohibited moderation.
With existing case law, in my mind repealing section 230 without replacement would mean going back to the old standard, which was more or less don't moderate and have no liability for user content, or moderate perfectly, because you are liable for content your moderation missed. You would probably also have some liability to users whose content you moderated off, but I don't know that I've seen a case with those specifics.
Well, neither states an end state, only an action, but “defund the police” is both exact and literal as to what is sought, so if you are saying “repeal section 230” is not, then the comparison is poorly chosen.
> On the whole, the Justice Department initiative is worse than an outright repeal of Section 230. It invites internet firms to chase an increasingly elusive quarry of immunity for third-party content while exposing them to a wider range of legal liability.
To quote President Trump, REPEAL SECTION 230!!! [2]. It's not really called sound bite politics if somebody consistently keeps saying something and also tries to do something about it.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/trumps-section-230-refo...
[2] https://www.thetrumparchive.com/?searchbox=%22section+230%22
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Repealing 230 means you don't get an opinion on the net anymore. The threat of legal repercussions are a lot more censoring than twitter. Content will still be made by companies and they'll still continue whatever information manipulation they're up to.
Perhaps it's not the 'sjw children'. Maybe it's that your position is wrong and others arent going to put up with it. There's social repercussions the same as anywhere else.
What's under discussion is whether "the new public square" of Twitter/Facebook/et al constitute the same manner of oligopolistically-provided service that everyone has a right to.
Deleted Comment
And remember that a power company can cut off power to people if they are intentionally attempting to disrupt the power system, or simply not paying.
There's no market for a social network just for people in North Dakota, so North Dakota doesn't really have any leverage in situations like this.
Deleted Comment
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55678502