This article is part of the On Tech newsletter. You can Login here to get it on weekdays.

Today there is another one Congressional hearing about an internet law older than Google: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Please don’t stop reading.

Chances are the law won’t change. But section 230 is still worth talking about as it is a substitute for big questions: is more language better and who can decide? Shouldn’t we do something about giant internet companies? And who is responsible when bad things that happen online cause people to be injured or even killed?

Let me try to explain what the law is, what it is really about, and what proposals need to be fixed.

What’s Section 230 Again? The 26-word law allows websites to set rules about what people can or cannot post without being held legally responsible for the content (for the most part).

If I accuse you of the murder on Facebook, maybe you can sue me, but you can’t sue Facebook. If you buy a defective toy from a retailer on Amazon, you may be able to take the seller to court. but not Amazon. (There is some legal debate about this, but you get the gist of it.)

The law created the terms for Facebook, Yelp, and Airbnb to give people a voice without getting sued. But now republican and Democrats ask whether the law gives tech companies either too much power or too little responsibility for what happens under their watch.

In general, Republicans fear that Section 230 leaves internet companies too much leeway to suppress what people say online. Democrats believe there is an opportunity for internet companies not to effectively stop illicit drug sales or to prevent extremists from organizing violence.

What is the fight about? Really:: Everything. Our fears are now projected onto these 26 words.

Section 230 is a proxy battle for our discomfort on Facebook and Twitter to have the strength to be silent the President of the United States or a student who has nowhere else to turn. The struggle for the law reflects our fears that people can lie online with seemingly no consequences. And it’s about the desire to hold people accountable when what’s happening online is causing irreparable damage.

It makes sense to ask whether Section 230 removes the incentive for online businesses to take action that would discourage people smear those who don’t like them or block the channels that make it easier to sell drugs. Likewise, it is reasonable to ask if the real problem is that people want it anyone, anyone – a broken law or an unscrupulous internet company – to blame for the bad things people do to each other.

One topic at the Congressional hearing on Thursday is the many legislative proposals to amend Section 230, mostly in the margins. My colleague David McCabe helped me categorize the suggestions into two (slightly overlapping) buckets.

Fix-it plan 1: raise the bar. Some lawmakers want online businesses to meet certain conditions before they receive Section 230 legal protection.

For example, a congressional proposal would require internet companies to report to law enforcement if they believe that people might be planning violent crimes or drug offenses. If businesses fail to do so, they may lose Section 230 legal protection and the floodgates can be opened for lawsuits.

Facebook this week supported a similar idea, who suggested that the company and other large online businesses should have systems in place to identify and remove potentially illegal material.

Another bill would require Facebook, Google, and others to demonstrate that they did not display political bias in removing a post. Some republicans say section 230 requires websites to be politically neutral. That is not true.

Fix-it Plan 2: Create more exceptions. A suggestion would prevent internet companies from using Section 230 as a defense in legal cases involving activities such as civil rights abuses, harassment and death. Another suggests getting people to sue internet companies when pictures of child sexual abuse are posted on their websites.

This category also includes legal questions as to whether Section 230 applies to the involvement of the computer systems of an Internet company. When Facebook’s algorithms helped spread propaganda from Hamas as David detailed In an article, some legal experts and lawmakers said that Section 230 legal protection should not have applied and that the company should be complicit in acts of terrorism.

((Slate has detailed all proposed bills to amend Section 230.)

There is no denying that by connecting the world to the Internet as we know it, it has enabled people to do a lot of good – and cause a lot of damage. The struggle for this law involves a multitude. “It all comes from frustration,” David told me.



  • Amazon’s tricky political balancing act: David’s latest article deals with the subject Amazon tries to stay on the good side of democratic leaders in Washington, while overturning a union action supported by many Democratic leaders. (Also one of Amazon’s senior executives chose a fight on twitter with Senator Bernie Sanders.)

  • Math lessons for your child (and you): The Wall Street Journal explains some of the educational apps and services that can do this Help families with math homework, Lessons and tutoring. For example, you can take a photo of a math equation and Photomath will spit out the answer with instructions on how to solve it.

  • It took the Pentagon three weeks to create a bad meme: Vice News has the details about Defense Department employees making an online visual joke about Russians, malicious software, and maybe Halloween candy? The meme wasn’t funny, it lasted 22 days and it was only retweeted 190 times.

Dolphins! In the East River of New York! That’s funny! (But apparently not that weird. Here are more details too Dolphin sightings in Manhattan.)


We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you would like us to explore. you can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don’t have this newsletter in your inbox yet, Please sign in here.





Source link

Leave a Reply