DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation

Re:DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation by anonHacker2 on Thursday September 24, 2020 @02:10AM (#24575772)

Subparagraph (c)1(B) says that the only safe harbor for removing content is (c)(2). (c)(2)(A) restricts the criteria that can be used to remove content to the following: "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, promoting terrorism or violent extremism, harassing, promoting self-harm, or unlawful".

Furthermore, section (c)(1)(C) implies that removing ANY content by a user could make the forum liable for ALL OTHER content posted by that user, unless there is "good faith", but "good faith" is defined in section (g)(5)(A) to require all moderation criteria to be defined with "particularity".

Most open-ended subjective moderation criteria (such as used on Hacker News e.g. "Be kind. Don't be snarky") could be construed to lack "particularity" and is often about things not on the list in (c)(2)(A).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:DOJ unveils proposed Section 230 legislation by mullingitover on Thursday September 24, 2020 @05:03PM (#24583625)

I'm talking about abandoning the 230 safe harbor protections (since this bill would render them worthless), and instead requiring in their TOU that posters agree to assume full liability for content they post, and also agree that anything they post can be removed for any reason. Existing users would be prompted to agree to these terms, and if not their accounts would be wiped.

[ Parent | on HN ]