Democratic senators' SAFE TECH Act will strip Section 230 immunity for any ads or posts violating civil rights, antitrust, cyberstalking, human rights laws
Not Help — the Internet Tweets: Mark Warner / @markwarner : The SAFE TECH Act doesn't interfere with free speech - it's about allowing these platforms to finally be held accountable for harmful, often criminal behavior enabled by their platforms to which they have turned a blind eye for too long. (1/8) https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... Mike Masnick / @mmasnick : My first analysis of @MarkWarner @maziehirono & @amyklobuchar's bill to “reform” Section 230. It's a disaster of epic proportions. We'd almost certainly shut down Techdirt if it becomes law. It undermines everything about the open internet. https://www.techdirt.com/... Dell Cameron / @dellcam : There are several big issues with the #Section230 bill introduced by Democrats today. Sen. Wyden tells me “as written, it would devastate every part of the open internet.” Other experts agree it could have major unintended consequences. https://gizmodo.com/... Mark Warner / @markwarner : We've seen over and over again that online advertising is a key vector for all manner of frauds and scams, in many cases targeting the most vulnerable users such as seniors. (3/8) https://qz.com/... Tony Romm / @tonyromm : NEW: Warner to intro new bill to rein in Section 230, essentially opening the door for web users to take legal action against Facebook, others, if viral content causes real world harm and discrimination. Many civil rights orgs back bill https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... Eriq Gardner / @eriqgardner : I don't understand how the first sentence and the second are both true but I guess I need to see the text of this Reform 230 bill. @TonyRomm https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... https://twitter.com/... Patrick Karjala / @hi_pat_trick : @maziehirono This is a terrible piece of legislation that has good intentions, but will have the unintended effect of basically killing open discourse in online platforms. No one will want to risk the liability. Please table this bill. Senator Mazie Hirono / @maziehirono : Sec 230 was supposed to incentivize internet platforms to police harmful content posted by users. Instead, the law acts as a shield allowing them to turn a blind eye. The SAFE TECH Act brings Sec 230 into the modern age and makes platforms accountable for the harms they cause. https://twitter.com/... Jess Miers / @jess_miers : “My question for the drafters is: what services do they think will still qualify for Section 230 if this reform goes through; how likely is it that those services will do what the members of Congress want; and will those services be able to afford to remain in business?” https://twitter.com/... Christina Warren / @film_girl : 230 isn't perfect but it is essential. If we were drafting it today, maybe it could be different. But we have what we have and the attempts at “reform” from all sides would be devastating to the Internet and speech as we know it. https://twitter.com/... Ernesto Falcon / @efffalcon : We waste a lot of time on the incorrect belief that 230 in general isn't a net positive. Of course bad things happen on the Internet, but for every bad thing no matter how terrible I've seen the open Internet used as a greater force for good. I wish the reform focus was narrow. https://twitter.com/... @lawyerscomm : “This bill would make irresponsible big tech companies accountable for the digital pollution they knowingly and willfully produce, while continuing to protect free speech online.” -David Brody | Digital Justice Project More from @washingtonpost: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... Derek Smart / @dsmart : 1) This is a pipe dream that is unlikely to make it to the floor 2) All the activities in the thread were still going on when the law containing 230 was passed. Nothing has changed 3) The FTC already has legal mandate to regulate everything in #2 4) 230 isn't going anywhere https://twitter.com/... @naacp_ldf : “As we have repeatedly seen, these platforms are being used to violate the civil rights of Black users and other users of color by serving as virtually-unchecked homes for hateful content.” —@lisa_cylar, Director of Policy https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... @colorofchange : After a deadly attack on the Capitol by white supremacist insurrectionists, it's past time for members of Congress to hold #BigTech accountable for enabling civil rights violations against Black communities - they can start by supporting this legislation."https://www.washingtonpost .com/ ... Matt Stoller / @matthewstoller : Thread. Senators @MarkWarner @amyklobuchar @maziehirono deserve credit for introducing this *excellent* bill to create a credible legal framework for the internet. The bill repeals key parts of Section 230, which immunizes tech platforms from liability for harm they cause. https://twitter.com/... Matt Stoller / @matthewstoller : Mostly what the new bill does is say that civil rights anti-discrimination laws apply to Facebook, Google, etc. You might be asking 'wait civil rights laws don't apply to Facebook, Google, etc?!?' They do not. That's how you know that Section 230 is a complete disaster. https://twitter.com/... Sacha Baron Cohen / @sachabaroncohen : Newsmax shut down Mike Lindell's lies—because it can be sued! But Facebook spreads the same lies to millions—because it's legally immune (Section 230). This is insane. No more special rules for Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. Hold Mark liable. Stop the lies. Reform 230. https://twitter.com/... Mark Warner / @markwarner : For years, Section 230 provided a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card to platform companies as their sites are openly and repeatedly used by bad actors to cause damage and injury. Section 230 will be brought into the present-day with the SAFE TECH Act creating targeted exceptions. (2/8) Tom Coates / @tomcoates : Please believe me when I say that for all the issues I have with big tech companies and for all the work that they should be doing (and we should put legislative and social pressure on them to do) to fight abuse, these changes to 230 are just wrong. https://twitter.com/... Joshua B. Hoe / @joshuabhoe : Nope....this is not it JUST STOP IT Democrats, you are not helping the cause at all here https://twitter.com/... Marc J. Randazza / @marcorandazza : This approach is it is precisely the wrong approach. DMCA style notice-and-takedown for all harms would work. Instead, you just have a bunch of dipshits trying to stifle speech they don't like, but leaving all other harms protected. https://twitter.com/... Jess Miers / @jess_miers : Not to mention, Techdirt is naturally prone to a slew of defamation suits (blogging about case law tends to lend itself to that reality). If they don't shut down voluntarily, their web host could certainly do it for them given the host's newfound derivative liability risks. https://twitter.com/... Dell Cameron / @dellcam : .@ericgoldman said the bill is like an “omnibus” approach to #Section230, trying to incorporate a dozen policy ideas poorly instead of carefully targeting one area of concern for reform. https://gizmodo.com/... https://twitter.com/... Dell Cameron / @dellcam : “This bill would have the same effect as a full repeal of 230, but cause vastly more uncertainty and confusion, thanks to the tangle of new exceptions.” - @RonWyden https://gizmodo.com/... https://twitter.com/... Nu Wexler / @wexler : “This legislation has some admirable goals,” Wyden said. “Unfortunately, as written, it would devastate every part of the open internet, and cause massive collateral damage to online speech.” https://gizmodo.com/... @alex : did a v dumb tweet earlier, mixed up wyden and warner, here's Wyden saying that Warner's section 230 bill is hot garb https://gizmodo.com/... John Battelle / @johnbattelle : Section 230's the elephant. Legislators seem to be the blind men. https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/... Andy Kroll / @andykroll : You're going to hear *a lot more* about something called Section 230 and tech companies in the next four years. Here's the new Democratic plan to amend Sec. 230: https://www.protocol.com/... Dan Lewis / @dandotlewis : If Section 230 goes away/is changed, my prediction is a lot of wasted time, effort, and money in the short-term, plus a lot of missed opportunities. Long-term, we probably end up with Section 230-like caselaw anyway. (Details in thread.) https://twitter.com/... Scott Greenfield / @scottgreenfield : “During the drafting process, Warner, Hirono and Klobuchar's staff consulted with civil rights groups...as well as experts in online harms, including...Mary Anne Franks...Danielle Citron, who together run the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative.” It was fun while it lasted, kids. https://twitter.com/... Issie Lapowsky / @issielapowsky : It takes aim at online ads and marketplace listings by removing immunity for any speech that a platform is paid to carry or played a role in creating. https://www.protocol.com/... Megan Fox / @glassbottommeg : Didn't expect to approve of this, but huh. Targeting paid ads and placements and store descriptions WOULD seem to fix a lot of how large orgs backed a coup without touching much else. https://twitter.com/... Issie Lapowsky / @issielapowsky : NEW: Big Section 230 bill out from @MarkWarner @maziehirono and @amyklobuchar. It creates new carveouts in the law designed to protect civil rights and defend against other specific online harms. It also narrows 230 to focus on speech, not all information. https://www.protocol.com/... Armando / @armandondk : I don't know on policy but this seems good politics for Dems. https://twitter.com/... Issie Lapowsky / @issielapowsky : It strikes the word “information” in what @jkosseff calls the “26 words that created the internet” and replaces it with “speech” This would limit protections for a bunch of bad behavior that might not be considered speech, a change suggested by @ma_franks https://www.protocol.com/... Mike Masnick / @mmasnick : That's because the first sentence is not accurate. https://twitter.com/... See also Mediagazer