Please Support Section 230 and the Survival of this Forum and others

[Lowell]

DetroitYES has always invited and welcomed members of diverse political and social views. We only require civil discourse and avoidance of personal attacks. We try to be as even-handed as we can and offer a non-threatening venue for the expression of viewpoints.

The result, I believe, has been two decades of vigorous, if heated, wide-ranging, and [dare I say] enjoyable debate particularly on this Non-Detroit forum. And certainly, compared to the wider internet, it has been generally as respectful as could be hoped for when opposite sides clash.

I think such discussion is important—that we meet and debate our differences and not retreat into the bubbles and silos of information now made so easy to do by the internet and cable talk shows. Diverse discussion is essential to the core of our democracy and freedoms.

However… The continuance of this forum has been made possible by the protections provided by Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Bill. In essence it says that if some member posts libelous, violent or other legally culpable content, DetroitYES cannot be sued for their action. Without that one lawsuit could easily bring down this site and thousands of others like it. We are not Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, we only make enough to keep the lights on here, not to incur the great costs of legal defense.

Section 230 has come under assault over the years by aggrieved parties from across the political and social spectrum but, thankfully, it has survived. I bring this up in light of yesterday’s Presidential Executive Order as described below. I ask all to support the unaltered continuance of Section 230 and to oppose any diminishment or addition of burdensome regulations, no matter who or what viewpoint may oppose it and, by extension, assist in the continuance of our discussions.

The following was posted by Steven Levy or WIRED

[By executive order an attempt is being made] to unilaterally reinterpret the meaning of Section 230, the part of the 1996 Telecommunications Bill that gives the platforms the ability to police the user-created content on their sites for safety and security without bearing the legal responsibility for anything those billions of people might say...According to the order, [the Federal government] will have the power to strip companies of their protection under Section 230.

[The order would] use something called the “Tech Bias Reporting Tool” to examine platforms for political bias and report offenders to the DOJ and FTC for possible action.

[Richard]

The FTC and FCC are independent agencies so experts say it would be up to them to decide whether to carry out Trump's executive order if it's signed. Robert McDowell, a former Republican commissioner at the FCC, tweeted that "this speech control is #unconstitutional."

https://www.cnet.com/news/trump-exec...dia-companies/

The problem is they are saying and reporting on a “leaked draft” without showing the content of the draft,drafts are basically notes scribbled in a napkin and are merely suggestions and rarely even close to the finial resolution.

Until we see a finial resolution its hard to even say what it entails.

I know for a fact Facebook has a serious problem in which way they lean and what opposing opinions are allowed and from what side.

There is a trend of weaponizing social media for agendas.

I cannot remember if it is RT or another outlet that is getting ready to do a series on social media scrubbing and how it traumatizes the scrubbers.

It shows lots of people of aisian decent in a room with computer screens 8 to 14 hours a day combing every square inch of the internet and responding to complaints.

Some people think the president has all of this finial power sitting up there,when in most cases he has little and VP are only like their helpers.

Thats why the government was set up as it is,so no branch can have absolute power,and no branch can subvert the constitution.

He or any other president can say what they want,implementing and enforcement of it is a whole different ball of wax.

[Jimaz]

Here's some background info from the Electronic Frontier Foundation: CDA 230.

[Richard]

^ from another link on that site

The good news is that, assuming the final order looks like the draft we reviewed on Wednesday,

Everybody is talking about this draft,how come nobody is posting a link to it or producing an actual copy of it ?

Am I just not finding it somewhere?

[jiminnm]

^ from another link on that site

The good news is that, assuming the final order looks like the draft we reviewed on Wednesday,

Everybody is talking about this draft,how come nobody is posting a link to it or producing an actual copy of it ?

Am I just not finding it somewhere?

Here's the exec order:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/president...ne-censorship/

[Richard]

^ thanks

In particular, subparagraph [[c)[[2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions [[often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.



What was in the part Lowell posted

he following was posted by Steven Levy or WIRED
[By executive order an attempt is being made] to unilaterally reinterpret the meaning of Section 230, the part of the 1996 Telecommunications Bill that gives the platforms the ability to police the user-created content on their sites for safety and security without bearing the legal responsibility for anything those billions of people might say...According to the order, [the Federal government] will have the power to strip companies of their protection under Section 230.


It does not look like it is actually changing anything outside of an additional outlet in case a host site like Twitter and Facebook that millions use decide to use those platforms as a weapon.

It is killing the weaponization of social media as it should,but not automatically and with no recourse.

I am not seeing where it is eliminating sites like Dyes from the existing statue and acting in good faith.

provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content.

Dyes would still have protected liability rights to remove content deemed in good faith as outlined under the changes and nothing would really change in this case because personally I have never witnessed any violations that are spelled out under the TOU agreement.

If you think about it the big sites like Facebook and Twitter are powerful media tools that if used in a way that does not promote or allow opposing views is dangerous.

Think what would happen if they took the stance of a strictly far left or far right media source.

The internet evolves faster then they can keep up with,it will always be in a constant state of review.