Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[GordMay]

U.S. Senators Introduce Bills to limit Section 230

Senators Mark Warner, Mazie Hirono and Amy Klobucharsaid have introduced a bill, that would make online platforms more liable for the content that their users post, particularly if those posts lead to harm. The SAFE TECH Act [1] aims to limit the protections that social media companies are afforded under Section 230, a provision of the Communications Decency Act 1996, that shields them from accountability for user activity.
If the act becomes law, platforms wouldn't be able to claim Section 230 liability for ads or other paid content.
The provision would not shield companies from complying with court orders or alleged violations of civil rights, antitrust, cyberstalking or human rights laws at state and federal level. Additionally, the bill makes it clear that Section 230 would not protect platforms from civil actions stemming from wrongful deaths.
The bill also aims to limit Section 230, at a broader level, to ensure the provision applies only to speech, and not all online activity, such as the dealing of illicit goods. It would modify the language of Section 230 (currently: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider") by replacing "information" with "speech."
While there's a general consensus among politicians (and even the likes of Facebook and Twitter) that Section 230 should be changed, there are differing opinions on how best to do so.

Other senators have recently introduced proposals* to reform the provision.

[1] ‘‘Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism, and Consumer Harms Act’’ or the ‘‘SAFE TECH Act’’
About ➥ https://www.warner.senate.gov/public...rm-section-230
Act ➥ https://www.warner.senate.gov/public...ct---final.pdf

* For instance, Senators Joe Manchin John Cornyn have reintroduced their bipartisan "See Something, Say Something Online Act" [2], which would add provisions to Section 230 requiring companies to report suspicious activity to law enforcement through a new clearinghouse within the Justice Department.
Companies must take "reasonable steps" to prevent or address illegal activity, and can be held liable if they fail to report it. The tech industry has said the bill would put companies in the untenable position of trying to figure out what is and isn't evidence of a crime, which could lead to sharing user information with law enforcement to avoid liability.

[2] "See Something, Say Something Online Act"
About ➥ https://www.manchin.senate.gov/imo/m...20Pager.pdf?cb
Act ➥ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...bill/4758/text

[Snore]

Interesting. In the broadest sense, would CF become liable for bad suggestions?

Jimmy wannabe posts on CF looking to learn about crossing the Atlantic. ‘Someone’ tells him to ‘just go for it’. Would this bill make CF liable?

Let’s say Jimmy wannabe looses his boat, is injured or dies. There could be a shipload of attorneys looking to say that the post by ‘Someone’ caused harm.

Clearly, no prudent insurance firm will cover CF for this type of liability without HUGE premiums.

Depending on how this bill develops it could be the end of platforms like CF, SA, or any other groups where solutions are bantered about.

[geekoman]

Maybe our political leaders can lead by example.

[Chotu]

There should be no change in section 230.

The change should be made at the education level.

We are churning out generations of dopes. Maybe it’s time to teach critical thinking and analysis to people from a young age.

These falsehoods have taken root because people are not savvy enough to separate fact from fiction.



Changing section 230 is like making a street corner liable for a raving lunatic spouting his ideas there.

The internet, essentially, is a public place. All should be welcome, regardless of viewpoint.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Snore

Interesting. In the broadest sense, would CF become liable for bad suggestions? ...
... Depending on how this bill develops it could be the end of platforms like CF, SA, or any other groups where solutions are bantered about.

Apparently not, but, you raise an important concern.
Some of your questions [and Chotu’s objections] might be answered, with a little light reading:

Bill text is available here ➥ https://www.warner.senate.gov/public...ct---final.pdf

A three-page summary is available here ➥ https://www.warner.senate.gov/public...hree-pager.pdf

A redline of Section 230 is available here ➥ https://www.warner.senate.gov/public...a-redline.pdf/

According to Sen Warner:
“... These changes to Section 230 do not guarantee that platforms will be held liable in all, or even most, cases. Proposed changes do not subject platforms to strict liability; and the current legal standards for plaintiffs still present steep obstacles. Rather, these reforms ensure that victims have an opportunity to raise claims without Section 230 serving as a categorical bar to their efforts to seek legal redress for harms they suffer – even when directly enabled by a platform’s actions or design...
... These reforms do not render ICS providers liable for all – or even most – third-party content, including where they engage in moderation activity. Nor do these reforms alter the already-steep hill plaintiffs must already climb. Rather, these reforms allow victims an opportunity to seek redress where they can potentially show that a platform has directly contributed to their injury...
... The SAFE TECH Act brings Section 230 into the modern age by addressing those areas in which the law has been abused by platforms—such as civil rights, stalking, and harassment—in a targeted way. It is also important to remember, that even with the changes proposed in the SAFE TECH Act, Section 230 does not impose liability on anyone. There must still be a violation of some law and plaintiffs must still prove causation, harm, and damages. And the application of that law to an internet platform still cannot run afoul of the First Amendment."
FAQ Here ➥ https://www.warner.senate.gov/public...e-tech-faq.pdf

[CaptTom]

Interesting stuff. I see valid arguments on both sides of this issue.

But I keep coming back to one observation. It's not the "free speech" aspect that's at the core of the problem. There have always been crazy ideas, and there has always been a way to air them in public. And some crazy ideas raise valid issues.

What's changed is that the algorithms so-called social media companies use amplify the craziest and most salacious speech, and de-emphasize the true, but less emotionally charged, speech. Basically, the algorithms are specifically designed to rile people up, to get them angry, and to push them away from reality-based speech.

The tech companies have a euphemism for that. They call it "engagement." And it's highly profitable for them.

[Discovery 15797]

The essence of these bills is to further control personal expressions and beliefs (sometimes hateful and ridiculous), and restrict published content to accepted mantra which parrots some predetermined narrative to drive an issue.

There is nothing new here....most of us have seen this all play out before or learned about this under various other "reformations" and "rebuilding."

[carlosproa]

Here in Florida, as an attempt to be relevant, Governor Desantis wants to fine social media if they ban a plotician from their platform

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tam...outputType=amp

[carlosproa]

So I see a lot of popcorn [emoji897] comments here; I think we are going to need a bigger tub [emoji897] in th e next two years. I left Venezuela in 1979 due to increasingly radicalism and power grabs that left the poor much worse and eventually led to a nasty communist regime that lingers for far too long. I hope my adopted country does bot make the same mistake. Plain vanilla was the flavor of politics for a long time, and that provided stability. I am concern these past years of radicalism both from the right and left can only expedite the rise of the new super power, China; and I am certain the world won’t be in a better place if this happens

[JPK]

Originally Posted by Chotu

There should be no change in section 230.

The change should be made at the education level.

We are churning out generations of dopes. Maybe it’s time to teach critical thinking and analysis to people from a young age.

These falsehoods have taken root because people are not savvy enough to separate fact from fiction.



Changing section 230 is like making a street corner liable for a raving lunatic spouting his ideas there.

The internet, essentially, is a public place. All should be welcome, regardless of viewpoint.

This problem is not generational. Watch any video clip of a Trump rally, QAnon meeting, even the Jan. 6 insurrection, and you'll observe idiots of all ages there.

The problem, as CaptTom points out, is the algorithms that social media use to drive engagement. Everyone should watch the documentary "The Social Dilemma." If you think social media is just a street corner for people to express their personal viewpoints, you are sorely mistaken. Social media is an algorithm-driven tool built for the sole purpose of selling advertising by feeding people inflammatory content in order to maximize the time they spend on the platform. As such, they bear a huge responsibility (IMO) for the content they choose to promote to drive engagement (and maximize profit).

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by JPK

This problem is not generational. Watch any video clip of a Trump rally, QAnon meeting, even the Jan. 6 insurrection, and you'll observe idiots of all ages there.

The problem, as CaptTom points out, is the algorithms that social media use to drive engagement. Everyone should watch the documentary "The Social Dilemma." If you think social media is just a street corner for people to express their personal viewpoints, you are sorely mistaken. Social media is an algorithm-driven tool built for the sole purpose of selling advertising by feeding people inflammatory content in order to maximize the time they spend on the platform. As such, they bear a huge responsibility (IMO) for the content they choose to promote to drive engagement (and maximize profit).

That’s why I said generations. Plural. Many generations of dopes.

Social media is algorithm driven for engagement. The internet in general is not. It truly is a street corner. So it’s not right to apply these changes limiting free speech to everything.

A shotgun approach is ridiculous and an overreach, encroaching on free speech.

This forum is a great example of a place those changes would affect, but would be misapplied to.

Any reaction should be laser focused.

Side note: I have no background in social media algorithms, but I’d suspect they act to amplify already popular things. Things that “trend”. You get more hits (eyeballs) by showing people things they’re likely to look at. That’s the essence of the algorithms. If you like looking at trump rally pics, they’ll notice that people who like trump rally pics may like Q anon pics. So because you’re in group A, they’ll float a few Group B pics in front of you too, to see if you like them. If you start looking at them, they’ll float more and more of them.

They aren’t actually forcing anyone to see anything. They’re amplifying people’s actual interests and attempting to feed them more of what they like seeing.

You should see my feeds. Loaded with cool boat stuff. But they aren’t forcing boat stuff down my throat. They picked up that it’s what I spend my time looking and attempt to show me more and more of what I like so I’ll keep looking.

Same with Q anon or whacko extremist stuff from whatever political angle. Thr people seeing it are already looking at it.

You’ll find absolutely no politics in my feed other than stories from centrist news sources I chose to follow. No Q Anon, no AOC fan club, nothing.

I recall a thread on here where someone was complaining about seeing political ads on this forum. They had no idea it’s because that’s what they look at and their preference are tracked. So when google serves up an ad in the blank ad space on CF, they see what is relevant to them. Instead this person thought CF was itself pushing political ads.

[JPK]

Sorry, but the whole "free speech" argument is a misunderstood and overused bunch of horseshit. Yes, people are free to say whatever they want. And, words have consequences.

Specific to the topic of forums like this one, if a forum has a policy against certain types of inflammatory content, and they can demonstrate that they actively enforce this policy, they are very unlikely to run into legal trouble over a single post that "slips through the cracks," so to speak. Where they would (and should) run into serious legal problems is when they ignore this content, or (worse yet) systematically promote it for their own profit. I don't get the sense that this is going on here, or any other forums I frequent, so concern that the above-proposed laws would somehow mean the end of sites like CF is quite unfounded IMO.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Chotu

I recall a thread on here where someone was complaining about seeing political ads on this forum. They had no idea it’s because that’s what they look at and their preference are tracked. So when google serves up an ad in the blank ad space on CF, they see what is relevant to them. Instead this person thought CF was itself pushing political ads.

In that instance, I think you'll find that those ads were served to anyone who was American and an adult. A cruising forum would be a good bet. But the election would be an exception, and indeed most ads are based on profile. Of course, their profiles are still pretty crude; Google still thinks I'm concerned about earwax.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Chotu

... A shotgun approach is ridiculous and an overreach, encroaching on free speech...
... Any reaction should be laser focused...

Originally Posted by JPK

Sorry, but the whole "free speech" argument is a misunderstood and overused bunch of horseshit. Yes, people are free to say whatever they want. And, words have consequences.

Specific to the topic of forums like this one, if a forum has a policy against certain types of inflammatory content, and they can demonstrate that they actively enforce this policy, they are very unlikely to run into legal trouble over a single post that "slips through the cracks," so to speak. Where they would (and should) run into serious legal problems is when they ignore this content, or (worse yet) systematically promote it for their own profit. I don't get the sense that this is going on here, or any other forums I frequent, so concern that the above-proposed laws would somehow mean the end of sites like CF is quite unfounded IMO.

Indeed.

The goal of this thread to elicit the background information, necessary for an informed debate on freedom of expression, to explore it’s extent and limits, and to examine proposed strategies, for how best to safeguard this enabling right, in a responsible human rights-based information society.

With regard to human rights, in particular the freedom of expression[1], the principle of “what applies offline, should also apply online” can provide some general guidance.

But, freedom of expression is not an unlimited right.

However, any such restrictions need to be provided for by law, in the pursuit of a legitimate aim, and they must be necessary, and proportional to the aim pursued[2].

The Internet has not fundamentally changed the nature of freedom of expression, or the limits to its protection. Freedom of expression is an essential catalyst for a number of human rights.

But as the Internet also intensifies violations of human rights, and increases their potential harm, the law and practice of restrictions has to develop accordingly.

Rather than reinvent the wheel of legitimate restrictions to freedom of expression, the commonly used three-part test applies also in cases with an online connection. Some nuancing will continue to be necessary, but the principle stands: what is legal offline, is legal online; and what is forbidden offline is not protected online, but the character of the Internet with its amplifying and globalising effect needs to be taken into account.

[1] Including freedom of opinion, freedom of information, freedom of the press and the media, freedom of international communication, artistic freedom, and access to the Internet as a right.

[2] Restrictions must pass a three-part, cumulative test:
– it must be provided by law, to meet the principles of predictability and transparency,
– it must pursue one of the purposes envisaged in Article 19 of the ICCPR, i.e. to protect the rights or reputation of others, or to protect national security or public order, health or morals,
– it must be necessary, and also the least restrictive means to achieve the respective objective (principle of proportionality).

It is a peculiarity of the Internet, that information uploaded is available globally (and therefore is ubiquitous), and thus is subject to a variety of international, national, or supra-national rules, which can lead to different, if not contradictory treatment.
One example is the existence of different approaches to freedom of expression in Europe, and the United States.
Due to the entrenchment of free speech, in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, the ambit of freedom of expression in the US is significantly larger than in Europe, and Canada (for instance).
Forms of expression which are considered illegal under the ECHR are protected in the US, such as racist or hate speech, including Nazi propaganda, and Holocaust denial.
For this very reason, the US has made a reservation to Article 20 of the ICCPR, on the prohibition of hate speech, and did not sign the Additional Protocol to the Cybercrime Convention, concerning criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature, committed through computer systems.
Although the US courts protect against the misuse of freedom of expression for child abuse, such as child pornography, this aggravates the problem of addressing illicit speech, because European rules can be circumvented by using US or Australian servers, where other (laxer) standards apply.

I don't think this is an easy issue, to be solved by catch slogans.

[RaymondR]

The Australian experience is that when laws, such as Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act wherein it states: It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if: (a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; exist they will be abused by activists to suppress opinions stated by individuals as part of the legitimate public discourse.

If a rule or law exists which will allow the suppression of freedom of expression it will be abused.