Re:DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
by waheoo on Thursday September 24, 2020 @12:11AM
(#24575165)
Isn't this the point of the legislation?
If you want to be deemed a public square type of space that is fine but you don't then get to impose arbitrary rules about what is said, that would mean it is not a public place and is in fact a private space being editorialized by your private rulings on what speech should be allowed.
This is a very good move and clarifies everything for everyone.
Re:DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation
by curryst on Friday September 25, 2020 @07:13PM
(#24595014)
That has nothing to do with Section 230 protection. Nor am I aware of any large Internet site that has ever pretended to be a public square (beyond Reddit, who announced the change).
I don't see why this is a good move, other than opening up a bunch of sites to liability. And it's going to make the ToS even longer so that they can make it "particular". Who wins here exactly?
This disallows the common practice of open-ended moderation criteria such as "Be kind. Don't be snarky". Proposed section (c)(1)(b) removes the safe harbor except for moderation criteria on the list in proposed (c)(2)(a), which is: "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, promoting terrorism or violent extremism, harassing, promoting self-harm, or unlawful"
> Provide Definition of Good Faith. Second, the Department proposes adding a statutory definition of "good faith" which would limit immunity for content moderation decisions to those done in accordance with plain and particular terms of service and accompanied by a reasonable explanation...
Open-ended moderation criteria such as "Be kind. Don't be snarky" are at risk of not being judged "particular" enough, which is a requirement of proposed section (g)(5)(a), meaning that sites with open-ended criteria could be judged as "not in good faith" according to this definition, and lose their safe harbor.