Sen J Hawley introduces’Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act

Posted by Dobrien 4 years, 11 months ago to Legislation
116 comments | Share | Flag

With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” said Senator Hawley. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.

“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with. Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public. This legislation simply states that if the tech giants want to keep their government-granted immunity, they must bring transparency and accountability to their editorial processes and prove that they don’t discriminate.”

All Comments

  • Posted by PeterSmith 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes and conservatives are on the side of the latter, not the former. As are many of the leftists posting here, arguing against the basic points I'm making.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by PeterSmith 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not a "liberal" by which you mean "progressive," I'm an Objectivist.
    Conservatives are religious and nationalist collectivists.
    They are basically the left of the early 20th century.
    Conservatives want PC speech just like their secular counterparts in the progressive movement.
    You guys are two sides of the same coin.
    You have no business on an Objectivist blog.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Conservatives for example want the border controlled to keep out human trafficking, diseases , drugs , criminals and looters. Conservatives idea is to create a barrier and have a vetting system .
    Your liberals want sanctuary cities. Go to hell.
    Conservatives want free speech/ you and your liberals want PC speech. Go to hell.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Tech companies are under assault from government.
    An assault led by conservatives, as it has been every since Orren Hatch took Microsoft away from Bill Gates in order to start shaking down the tech sector.
    Tech companies are just trying to get in front of it.
    None of this situation is the fault of the tech companies.
    It is almost entirely the fault of the conservative movement.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by PeterSmith 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Google and Facebook are not using any government anything for their advantage.
    This is a myth concocted up by conservatives to justify their leftist assault on free speech and property rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In fact, big techs are pushing for more restrictions to create an even bigger barrier to entry for competitors.

    The Internet is one of the few positive outcomes from the Stadlers of the world. That is one of the most challenging issues regarding the platform vs. publisher question. Yes, Google, Twitter, and Facebook are platforms, but their dependence on the Internet platform that resulted from DOD research makes it hard for the Googles of the world to create barriers to entry without further government intervention on their behalf, some of which they have already bought.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good point. Such protection of them is bad for the property rights of others who may want to get in.
    Too many contributors here allow their distaste of big tech to advocate for more regulations. This would only strengthen the existing players and make it even harder for newcomers.
    Existing bigtechs would welcome more restrictions, they can cope, actually it will make life easier for them. Anyone who thinks that regulators would control the existing corporates and be fair, is naive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Blarman- a mix like all here. He comes up with some good stuff, sometimes.
    What is important is that platform owners can provide or not according to their whims. They have no obligation to be fair, balanced, or responsible.
    Limits? Calling someone a 'pig' is permissible tho' deplorable, stating the name of an agent of your government who works in a dangerous nation is not as that info is property of the government.

    What is also permissible is for other websites, of the type of-
    Consumer reports, Product Review, Choice, Which, etc to allow comments that 'DoNoEvil' is hypocritical, biased, unfair, erratic and de-registers users without process.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    George Soros is Toohey with Mulligan-like wealth. He places bets on collapses of nations, and then does everything in his power to make such collapses happen.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Some conspiracy "theories" are actually true. Google pushed the Obama administration into the Arab Spring for instance. While I am not a friend of Muslim theocracies or dictatorships, the situation in North Africa is definitely worse than it was before the Google-initiated Arab Spring.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Some of those attacking the tech industry are indeed like Toohey and Ferris, and others have a legitimate desire for removing a governmental carve out that Google, Facebook, and Twitter are using to their full advantage.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 2
    Posted by $ jbrenner 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is exactly the point. P needs no protection that anyone else would not have. They have a carved out preference.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well... they claim you can post on their site but they take off what they want. I hope people only post to sites that don’t censor

    Imagine if amazon selectively just trashed certain orders that you placed as a result of some some PC algorithm. So u wait for the product to arrive and it never does.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Posts from you and many others here SHOULD be down voted on an Objectivist forum.

    But it's posts from ewv and myself, along with any others explaining basic things from an actual Objectivist point of view, that even manage to go negative.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He's not alone, but he does seem to be one of the only ones who knows what he is talking about here.
    I'm not familiar with what you being a "producer" here signifies, but this is advertised as an Objectivist forum, which means the stuff ewv is posting should not even be controversial.
    It's the most basic stuff.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yea but the downvoting makes no sense on what is supposed to be on Objectivist forum.
    You guys seem more like the religious left (AKA conservatives) than Objectivists.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 4 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "You are right, but not in the way that you think. The leaders in Google and other successful technology companies share Toohey's and Ferris' behaviors"
    It's those attacking the tech industry that share the behaviors of the Toohey's and Ferris'.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo