.png "back to home page")
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/68775340/eschaff_181023_3061_0013.0.jpg)
Nope....this is not it
— Joshua B. Hoe (@JoshuaBHoe) February 5, 2021
JUST STOP IT Democrats, you are not helping the cause at all here https://t.co/H3nzPNYtSk
.@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://t.co/zhoSSdQDbB pic.twitter.com/RuZTYWwuXk
— Dell Cameron (@dellcam) February 5, 2021
#230 coauthor @RonWyden: "It would devastate every part of the open internet, and cause massive collateral damage to online speech.” https://t.co/11AkAbZGUg
— Jeff Jarvis (@jeffjarvis) February 5, 2021
This rant is far more thorough my initial reaction, which is "this sounds pretty fucking dumb". https://t.co/nFbqMcl1Qj
— Brandon Downey (@bdowney) February 5, 2021
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://t.co/1Q1BISiRLj
— issie lapowsky (@issielapowsky) February 5, 2021
“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://t.co/SsJELSyk1f
— Nu Wexler (@wexler) February 5, 2021
"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."
— Scott Greenfield (@ScottGreenfield) February 5, 2021
It was fun while it lasted, kids. https://t.co/kzMs7dMXSO
At some point, I just have to wonder if our politicians are broadly but unintentionally ignorant on internet and speech issues... or if they know better but are just willfully grandstanding. https://t.co/zD4MhsseaQ
— Adam Lasnik (@thatadamguy) February 5, 2021
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://t.co/Q1bGydU44N
— Mark Warner (@MarkWarner) February 5, 2021
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://t.co/QseaNTlsWU
— Tom Coates (@tomcoates) February 5, 2021
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://t.co/8xyrb2p99M pic.twitter.com/ooj1aboLXY
— Eriq Gardner (@eriqgardner) February 5, 2021
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://t.co/1Q1BISiRLj
— issie lapowsky (@issielapowsky) February 5, 2021
Section 230's the elephant. Legislators seem to be the blind men. https://t.co/Ee1O6xxFFM pic.twitter.com/7DraffHda9
— John Battelle (@johnbattelle) February 5, 2021
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://t.co/1Q1BISiRLj
— issie lapowsky (@issielapowsky) February 5, 2021
I don’t know on policy but this seems good politics for Dems. https://t.co/68dlvmOK7z
— Armando (@ArmandoNDK) February 5, 2021
My mixed feelings about every Section 230 bill is that for each of them the story is:
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) February 5, 2021
— This proposal is terrible, misunderstands the issues, and would basically kill the internet
— The internet was maybe a mistake? https://t.co/VIseexdBS7
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://t.co/P5QFiyZs3I
— Mike Masnick (@mmasnick) February 5, 2021
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://t.co/2qAY6mRrrf
— alex (@alex) February 5, 2021
230 covers *any entity* that hosts content put up by members of the public. If you hold the host directly liable for *any* of it then they are forced inevitably to review *all* of it and restrict anything even vaguely legally questionable.
— Tom Coates (@tomcoates) February 5, 2021
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://t.co/LFxvzZA6VJ
— Megan Fox (@glassbottommeg) February 5, 2021
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://t.co/wGNzu5YMft
— Dan Lewis (@DanDotLewis) February 5, 2021
If you think they are exaggerating, they are not. This bill would make websites liable for the advertisements they host, which is absolutely insane and would lead to the death of the internet. https://t.co/7Ic5TnN1ui pic.twitter.com/8oKxmePYK6
— Eric Cunningham (@decunningham2) February 5, 2021
That's because the first sentence is not accurate. https://t.co/sOAdSVj0dM
— Mike Masnick (@mmasnick) February 5, 2021
"Basically, this bill takes nearly every single idea that people who want there to be less speech online have had, and dumped it all into one bill."
— Emil Protalinski (@EPro) February 5, 2021
Oooh fun, what could go wrong? https://t.co/3PNwWbS9Mg
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://t.co/OzfMhcgYsw
— Jess Miers (@jess_miers) February 5, 2021
There are several big issues with the #Section230 bill introduced by Democrats today.
— Dell Cameron (@dellcam) February 5, 2021
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://t.co/zhoSSdQDbB
This approach is it is precisely the wrong approach.
— Marc J. Randazza (@marcorandazza) February 5, 2021
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://t.co/L8BIb2BtVX
“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://t.co/zhoSSdQDbB pic.twitter.com/i013DeabxI
— Dell Cameron (@dellcam) February 5, 2021
You're going to hear *a lot more* about something called Section 230 and tech companies in the next four years.
— Andy Kroll (@AndyKroll) February 5, 2021
Here's the new Democratic plan to amend Sec. 230: https://t.co/cCG1zZ4KAK
The insurrection made it clear: Lawmakers must reform Sec 230 protections to billion dollar companies who have:
— Arisha Hatch (@arishahatch) February 5, 2021
- incentivized the spread of hate-fueled misinformation
- evaded civil rights laws
The SAFE TECH act is crucial.https://t.co/zfDHM5Hwlr
Kudos to @ma_franks and @daniellecitron. Meaningful #230 reform proposal. https://t.co/swY4J5HsZH
— David Newhoff (@DavidLNewhoff) February 5, 2021
ダウントレンドなのは間違いないけど、いまの頂上から物凄くゆっくり落ちていくことになりそう。ここの時系列は思ったより長いんじゃないかと思う。ちょうど今2000年の日本の放送局くらいな感じだろうか。ぼくはBtoBがいま凄く面白いhttps://t.co/78kC8j4wTa
— touya (@touya_huji) February 6, 2021