• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,670


For those that don't know what Section 230 is I've included a brief summary:



Based on the wording of Pai's tweet it implies he intends to clarify it more in line with that of the right, rather then it's actual intention.

The original authors of Section 230 are very much alive and have gone on record to voice their support of the law as it stands. I personally don't know what the legal ramifications are for anything Pai could say, but the goal is clearly to intimidate tech companies into not moderating right wing posts on social media.
 

platocplx

2020 Member Elect
Member
Oct 30, 2017
36,072
Good luck, they will just moderate their crap even more Once you start adding liablity to shit it makes them even more at risk. How stupid are these folks are.
 

collige

Member
Oct 31, 2017
12,772
I have no idea what that statement is supposed to mean, but it's definitely not good.
 

Slatsunus

Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,216
The legal ramifications are none, because the FCC doesnt have say over how the law is interpreted. Which is why every Tech expert alive ignored him when he made the announcement. He'll try to make Trump Daddy happy and it'll get slapped down in court because its not within his powers to do so.
 

hitme

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,909
and I announce that this guy is a total dip shit.

Hoping the Biden admin fucking axes this guy.
 

Deleted member 1476

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,449
Because when I think about someone who should lead the conversation about section 230, I think Ajit Pai.
 

bsigg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,559
If they say websites are liable for what their users say, comment sections/forums will be done.
 
OP
OP
Kthulhu

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,670
The legal ramifications are none, because the FCC doesnt have say over how the law is interpreted. Which is why every Tech expert alive ignored him when he made the announcement. He'll try to make Trump Daddy happy and it'll get slapped down in court because its not within his powers to do so.
That's what I figured but my civics class didn't exactly go in depth on the headass decisions of the FCC chair under this idiotic admin.
 

hachikoma

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
1,628
The legal ramifications are none, because the FCC doesnt have say over how the law is interpreted. Which is why every Tech expert alive ignored him when he made the announcement. He'll try to make Trump Daddy happy and it'll get slapped down in court because its not within his powers to do so.
what? agencies absolutely can and do write the regulations that implement laws. that's... how this works.
 

Lord Fanny

Banned
Apr 25, 2020
25,953
It's hard to really say anything one way or another until we get an idea of what this clarification means. Could just an ass-kissing thing for Trump and it won't mean anything, it's hard to tell with this group sometimes. But like either way, I imagine it won't have a major impact because you know they aren't going to police these big corps as much as they threaten to because with big corps comes big bucks. I'm more concerned by the fact that pretty everyone, including pretty much every Dem Presidential candidate we had, seems to have forgotten net neutrality, at least I never head anyone say anything about it. That's sad, but not unexpected I guess
 

Joshua

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,730
Wouldn't these platforms moderate the content even more if they could be held liable for their posts?
 

Joe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,618
I expect he'll try to tweak and expand the language to demand that Twitter and Facebook be "nonpartisan" in their moderation. But it'll just be a scare-tactic, because they aren't actually censoring conservatives. I doubt the social media lawyers will be scared.
 

Lord Fanny

Banned
Apr 25, 2020
25,953
Oh all those fuckers will be getting pink slips Jan 21st 2021. I hope we have the senate too and makes all the confirmations easy.

I wouldn't be so sure. I imagine a moderate like Biden will be more than willing to keep on several of Trump's noms to 'reach across the aisle.' Don't know if Pai will be one of them, though, probably not.
 

collige

Member
Oct 31, 2017
12,772
Wouldn't these platforms moderate the content even more if they could be held liable for their posts?
Yes, this is why Craigslist shut down their personals section right after SESTA/FOSTA passed.

Edit: I should've been more clear on "moderating". Like OP says, they will just kill off everything.
 
Last edited:

BrickArts295

GOTY Tracking Thread Master
Member
Oct 26, 2017
13,777
This man is still around?!
Obligatory reminder:
maxresdefault.jpg
 

sangreal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,890
Wouldn't these platforms moderate the content even more if they could be held liable for their posts?

No, Section 230 was created because moderating your content made you responsible for it. There was already no liability if you just hosted user content unmoderated

The Stratton court held that Prodigy was liable as the publisher of the content created by its users because it exercised editorial control over the messages on their bulletin boards in three ways: 1) by posting Content Guidelines for users, 2) by enforcing those guidelines with "Board Leaders", and 3) by utilizing screening software designed to remove offensive language.[1]
 

Tahnit

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,965
lol if they do this then social media companies will simply ban far right people altogether as they are the only ones spreading harm and conspiracy.
 

Slayven

Never read a comic in his life
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
93,180
And come on, an announcement to say you will explain something? That reeks of looking busy for the boss
 

Slatsunus

Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,216
what? agencies absolutely can and do write the regulations that implement laws. that's... how this works.
I'm saying the FCC doesnt have power over this specific thing. Never has, its not in there purview. It's like if the EPA tried to file a law suit to end Net Neutrality. Not how it works.

"For this reason, the executive order may be vulnerable to constitutional challenges on the grounds that the president is attempting to circumvent and encroach on congressional authority. Most importantly, Section 230 does not reference the FCC at all, calling into question whether the agency has the necessary authority to begin with. Though Section 230 is in the Communications Decency Act, which the FCC is broadly regarded as having the authority to implement, the commission would need to demonstrate the necessary delegative authority from Congress to promulgate any rulemaking that would effectively amend a congressional statute. Meanwhile, the Center for Democracy & Technology, a nonprofit advocacy group for internet freedom, has filed a lawsuit to block the order on First Amendment grounds."

Most experts say the FCC would likely be challenged in court if the agency were to impose any rules around Section 230. The law contains no language giving the FCC or other federal agency the authority to make rules that limit what an online company can do. It only addresses questions of who can be sued and on what grounds. So any FCC action would likely be challenged on the grounds the agency was overstepping its authority.


This will get slapped down in court and is only meant to try to scare Social Media companies into letting stupid shit like Hunter Biden conspiracies run free.
 
OP
OP
Kthulhu

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,670
Wouldn't these platforms moderate the content even more if they could be held liable for their posts?

If history is any indication they'd probably moderate less. Section 230 was born after Prodigy lost a libel suit for what one of its forum users posted about Stratton Oakmont. Compuserve was hit with a similar lawsuit but won because it didn't moderate anything on its forums.

This would probably kill any US based sites with user generated content as the flood of unrestricted photos, video, and audio would lead to everyone abandoning the sites for some alternative.
 

Trey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,014
what? agencies absolutely can and do write the regulations that implement laws. that's... how this works.

All he can give is his opinion on the intent of the law. Short of them actually changing it, which requires voting, hearings, and opening the change up to comments from the public, this doesn't mean anything.
 

Orayn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,973
If history is any indication they'd probably moderate less. Section 230 was born after Prodigy lost a libel suit for what one of its forum users posted about Stratton Oakmont. Compuserve was hit with a similar lawsuit but won because it didn't moderate anything on its forums.

This would probably kill any US based sites with user generated content as the flood of unrestricted photos, video, and audio would lead to everyone abandoning the sites for some alternative.
I was under the impression that it would kill them for the opposite reason, that any site hosting user generated content would shut down due to needing either an army of lawyers to deal with potential litigation, or a mind boggling level of moderation to review every possible post before it's actually shared.
 

hachikoma

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
1,628
I'm saying the FCC doesnt have power over this specific thing. Never has, its not in there purview. It's like if the EPA tried to file a law suit to end Net Neutrality. Not how it works.

"For this reason, the executive order may be vulnerable to constitutional challenges on the grounds that the president is attempting to circumvent and encroach on congressional authority. Most importantly, Section 230 does not reference the FCC at all, calling into question whether the agency has the necessary authority to begin with. Though Section 230 is in the Communications Decency Act, which the FCC is broadly regarded as having the authority to implement, the commission would need to demonstrate the necessary delegative authority from Congress to promulgate any rulemaking that would effectively amend a congressional statute. Meanwhile, the Center for Democracy & Technology, a nonprofit advocacy group for internet freedom, has filed a lawsuit to block the order on First Amendment grounds."

Most experts say the FCC would likely be challenged in court if the agency were to impose any rules around Section 230. The law contains no language giving the FCC or other federal agency the authority to make rules that limit what an online company can do. It only addresses questions of who can be sued and on what grounds. So any FCC action would likely be challenged on the grounds the agency was overstepping its authority.


This will get slapped down in court and is only meant to try to scare Social Media companies into letting stupid shit like Hunter Biden conspiracies run free.
of course it would get challenged - there's capital at stake! but just because a law doesn't name an agency doesn't mean that regulations can't be promulgated. that happens all the time.
 

Slatsunus

Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,216
All he can give is his opinion on the intent of the law. Short of them actually changing it, which requires voting, and opening the change up to comments from the public, this doesn't mean anything.
Even if they voted it wont matter because the FCC doesn't have authority over Section 230.

It's all pageantry to make Trump feel happy
 

thefit

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,243
what? agencies absolutely can and do write the regulations that implement laws. that's... how this works.

Yes but they can be slapped down in court ironically due to Trump. He took several agencies to court from the consumer protection agency to the housing agencie and others to court and won by majority conservative justices that he can undo their laws or regulations and fire their heads etc. He created the precedent that will insure a pink slip for Ajit.
 

Trey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,014
Even if they voted it wont matter because the FCC doesn't have authority over Section 230.

It's all pageantry to make Trump feel happy

Same as the time he said he would look into "taking away NBC's TV license," and just quietly pretended nothing happened.

It's all a joke.
 

jwhit28

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,052
Wouldn't revoking 230 from Facebook and other platforms line up with Biden's stance?

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | Joe Biden Says Age Is Just a Number (Published 2020)

Mr. Biden interviews for The New York Times’s endorsement.
KK: Yeah, we're turning to the easy stuff now. Maybe if we could do one tech question, one econ question, how's that?


Charlie Warzel: Sure. Mr. Vice President, in October, your campaign sent a letter to Facebook regarding an ad that falsely claimed that you blackmailed Ukrainian officials to not investigate your son. I'm curious, did that experience, dealing with Facebook and their power, did that change the way that you see the power of tech platforms right now?


No, I've never been a fan of Facebook, as you probably know. I've never been a big Zuckerberg fan. I think he's a real problem. I think ——


CW: Can you elaborate?


No, I can. He knows better. And you know, from my perspective, I've been in the view that not only should we be worrying about the concentration of power, we should be worried about the lack of privacy and them being exempt, which you're not exempt. [The Times] can't write something you know to be false and be exempt from being sued. But he can. The idea that it's a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms.



CW: That's a pretty foundational laws of the modern internet.


That's right. Exactly right. And it should be revoked. It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy. You guys still have editors. I'm sitting with them. Not a joke. There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. It's irresponsible. It's totally irresponsible.


CW: If there's proven harm that Facebook has done, should someone like Mark Zuckerberg be submitted to criminal penalties, perhaps?


He should be submitted to civil liability and his company to civil liability, just like you would be here at The New York Times. Whether he engaged in something and amounted to collusion that in fact caused harm that would in fact be equal to a criminal offense, that's a different issue. That's possible. That's possible it could happen. Zuckerberg finally took down those ads that Russia was running. All those bots about me. They're no longer being run. He was getting paid a lot of money to put them up. I learned three things. Number one, Putin doesn't want me to be president. Number two, Kim Jong-un thinks I should be beaten to death like a rabid dog and three, this president of the United States is spending millions of dollars to try to keep me from being the nominee. I wonder why.
 

Slatsunus

Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,216
Same as the time he said he would look into "taking away NBC's TV license," and just quietly pretended nothing happened.

It's all a joke.
Oh I'm sure he'll publicly "clarify". It just wont be legal and hold up in court.

By the time this whole thing gets resolved Pai will be out on his ass and there will be a Dem heading the FCC anyway
 
OP
OP
Kthulhu

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,670
I was under the impression that it would kill them for the opposite reason, that any site hosting user generated content would shut down due to needing either an army of lawyers to deal with potential litigation, or a mind boggling level of moderation to review every possible post before it's actually shared.
Probably, but I imagine a few would just not moderate at all in order to preserve themselves, which would kill their user base.
 

sonicmj1

Member
Oct 25, 2017
680
of course it would get challenged - there's capital at stake! but just because a law doesn't name an agency doesn't mean that regulations can't be promulgated. that happens all the time.
Not really. An agency has power because it is granted that power by Congress. Section 230 has no relationship with any power the FCC was given. It doesn't require any regulatory body to implement.

When you look at what the law actually does, it's only applicable to civil suits between private parties. There's no space for the FCC to even get involved. So much of the conservative venting about the law has no relationship to how the law actually functions.
 

hachikoma

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
1,628
Not really. An agency has power because it is granted that power by Congress. Section 230 has no relationship with any power the FCC was given. It doesn't require any regulatory body to implement.

When you look at what the law actually does, it's only applicable to civil suits between private parties. There's no space for the FCC to even get involved. So much of the conservative venting about the law has no relationship to how the law actually functions.
I'm not saying it will or won't hold up, just that the federal government can absolutely take a shot at it and make things weird while it gets sorted out. This stuff is not cut and dry enough to dismiss out of hand.
 

ivantod

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,495
Oh all those fuckers will be getting pink slips Jan 21st 2021. I hope we have the senate too and makes all the confirmations easy.
I may have asked this before, but is there some kind of a mechanism to deal with the situation in which Republicans somehow manage to keep the senate majority and simply start refusing to confirm any of Biden's appointments? Or will this then be like with Garland that he simply can't appoint anybody? Or will he have to use some loophole for an interim appointment of some sort?