President Trump making major threat against all forums through NDAA

Jeremy8

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
150
Last night, Trump threatened to veto the NDAA (massive regularly occurring spending bill) if it didn't include a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.


Section 230 is important to forums because it means you aren't held legally accountable for what someone else says on your website. Even if you have rules in place on your form, it doesn't mean that questionable content won't slip through the cracks. As we know, moderation is not always perfect and often relies on user reports. What if you don't see something for days or at all because it got buried by other content? The forum owner could be held legally accountable. Forums who have less strict rules and encourage free speech are even more threatened.

Threatening to veto the NDAA is a big deal because it's effectively the same as threatening to shut down part of the government (at least this is how the media refers to this type of thing).

The reason President Trump is mad about Section 230 is because he believes website likes Twitter are unfair to him and he wants the government to intervene. However, even if you don't care about big social media sites like Twitter, changing the law affects everyone, even small forums.


To make matters worse, this isn't the only bad thing for forums that politicians are trying to force into the NDAA. Another piece threatens to censor the internet through copyright legislation: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...eform-bill-into-must-pass-spending-bill.shtml

Edit: I should add that this probably wouldn't affect forums hosted and operated outside of the US.
 
Last edited:

Abizaga

I am a tuna sandwich!
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
487
What a ****ing moron. Yeah becausr it's not like the people fought tooth and nail against the last attempt that was ILLEGALLY enforced.
 

we_are_borg

Administrator
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
5,591
Luckely he will turn in 49 days into a normal person. The next POTUS will need to fix many thing.
 

Jeremy8

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
150
Luckely he will turn in 49 days into a normal person. The next POTUS will need to fix many thing.
I also doubt that his veto threat will actually accomplish his goal, but we'll see where this goes over the next month.
 

Oh!

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
206
Last night, Trump threatened to veto the NDAA (massive regularly occurring spending bill) if it didn't include a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.


Section 230 is important to forums because it means you aren't held legally accountable for what someone else says on your website. Even if you have rules in place on your form, it doesn't mean that questionable content won't slip through the cracks. As we know, moderation is not always perfect and often relies on user reports. What if you don't see something for days or at all because it got buried by other content? The forum owner could be held legally accountable. Forums who have less strict rules and encourage free speech are even more threatened.

Threatening to veto the NDAA is a big deal because it's effectively the same as threatening to shut down part of the government (at least this is how the media refers to this type of thing).

The reason President Trump is mad about Section 230 is because he believes website likes Twitter are unfair to him and he wants the government to intervene. However, even if you don't care about big social media sites like Twitter, changing the law affects everyone, even small forums.


To make matters worse, this isn't the only bad thing for forums that politicians are trying to force into the NDAA. Another piece threatens to censor the internet through copyright legislation: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...eform-bill-into-must-pass-spending-bill.shtml

Edit: I should add that this probably wouldn't affect forums hosted and operated outside of the US.
Hi Jeremy8,

I am unsure if most people (even here) understand Section 230 and the implications of its proposed removal. Trump seems to seek its removal for the most personal of reasons.

Luckely he will turn in 49 days into a normal person. The next POTUS will need to fix many thing.
I fear you are being a tad optimistic there.:unsure:

Biden: he's for revoking Section 230 too - though, for other reasons!

On the one hand, we have Trump and friends who are seething because certain platforms are unwilling to let them post whatever content they so desire, no matter how objectionable, untrue or dangerous it might be. On the other, we have Biden et al who believe that certain platforms are being too lenient and should be removing far more content. Neither are happy with what they are getting - they both are wrong. I'll explain.

Section 230(c)(1) protects intermediaries from being sued for the comments they host and forward (but not for content authored by the actual platform, forum, blog, etc.). If Section 230 did not exist, a single complaint against any third-party content on the platform would lead to an abundance of caution from the host: the host/platforms would simply remove the content to avoid legal jeopardy. Indeed, without Section 230, the likely number of complaints would be vast - the only viable solution would be for the automated removal content upon a single flag from anyone. Obviously, it would be impossible to have discussion in such an environment, where a single individual who might object to your point (no matter how well made and objectively true) could cause the removal of your post. This is why the Section 230 was passed. It protects from frivolous attempts to have content removed by those aggrieved by the opinions of others.

Section 230(c)(2) - which deserves more attention - protects platforms and other intermediaries from being sued by those whose content has been removed or otherwise curtailed. Perhaps such actions would be constitutionally protected in the US anyway (per 1st Amendment), but the legal codification is an important additional protection as it encourages individual platforms to develop their own individual standards of what they consider appropriate material. This encourages diversity and somewhat protects a race to the bottom. If you feel that much of social media now is cesspit, imagine what it would be like if platforms where actively discouraged from taking action because of possible legal consequences and financial liabilities.

Both subsections are vitally important.

Most (all?) tech companies are registered in the US because of the protections afforded to them by Section 230. It is impossible to imagine any kind of functioning social media environment without this legal protection. If Section 230 was repealed, another safe jurisdiction would be required and sought by all the social media companies - I do not know where that might be. Not Europe, that's for sure. Where I do think there is a problem and legitimate cause for complaint is that the large social media companies have too much of a stranglehold on particular markets. But that's for another discussion. These companies also need to be far better regulated in how they (mis)handle personal data. Again, another discussion.

I seriously doubt that Trump will be successful in the revocation of Section 230. The fallout would be be enormous. I also expect that when reality hits Biden and those who seek revoking Section 230, they too will understand that it is good thing for us all that we have these protections.
 

Jeremy8

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
150
Last edited:

Kintaro

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
152
From Italy, I really can't understand how can be possible that this election was so close... and then I remember Berlusconi :censored:
 
Top