Read on Twitter
Today, Senate Republicans offered another stupid, stupid, politically backwards, and stupid bill, that would amend #Section230 to change how platforms moderate content. The “Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act” — nice title. Let’s see…. 1/11 https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/8/21428079/republicans-pressure-platforms-230-bill-liability-protection-blackburn-lindsey-graham-wicker
First, I SO agree with @ericgoldman that the main problem here is Congress spending its time messing up internet law while thew world burns. What an astounding dereliction of duty. But, let’s consider it anyway. 2/11 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2020/08/while-our-country-is-engulfed-by-urgent-must-solve-problems-congress-is-working-hard-to-burn-down-section-230.htm
Remember, #Section230 protects platforms from liability for what users say, unless it is a federal crime; and, their effort to moderate users as they see fit doesn’t change that. IN other words, platforms can moderate user content in good faith, period. 3/11
#Section230 is important: platforms can’t function if they may be held liable for everything users do, and platforms MUST be able to police their sites, to some degree (we just disagree on the details, how and how much). 230 could certainly be improved - but not like this. 4/11
With this bill, a platform would lose 230 protection for removing content thats “provided by another information content provider”. Got that? Twitter removes something, but the same content can be found on 4chan, Breitbart, or the open web, Twitter could be sued for it. 5/11
It would also require platforms to have “an objectively reasonable belief” something’s worth removing. Who decides if a platform's being “objectively” reasonable? The decade-long battle over content moderation has proven: there’s no objective view of what should be removed. 6/11
Other changes may seem more reasonable. The bill adds to the list of what's worth moderating: “self-harm, promoting terrorism, or unlawful” joins “lewd, excessively violent, harassing” etc. Fine. But notice what didn’t get added: disinfo? conspiracy? hate speech? 7/11
The bill also redefines "content provider" to add editorializing / modifying content created by someone else. Does that make fact-checking and adding warnings, as Twitter + Facebook have recently done to Trump’s threats, as liable as a publisher? 8/11 https://thehill.com/policy/technology/515549-republican-senators-introduce-new-section-230-reform-bill
Sen. Graham says “Social media cos. are routinely censoring content that to many, should be considered valid political speech" + the bill "addresses the concerns of those who feel like their political views are being unfairly suppressed” But... it... does not in fact do that...
This is a bill that wants to score political points, has a small-minded view of the problems users actually face, and includes a flaw so profound it could push every platform toward the lowest denominator - which, on the Internet, we know is desperately low. 10/11
Platforms make lots of mistakes, and their policies need improvement. Moderation is hard. But instead of tying their hands behind their back, why can’t Senate Republicans propose laws designed to actually help platforms do the hard work of moderation better? 11/11
