Biden Wants To Get Rid of Law That Shields Companies like Facebook From Liability For What Their Users Post (cnbc.com) 263
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden wants to get rid of the legal protection that has shielded social media companies including Facebook from liability for users' posts. From a report: The former vice president's stance, presented in an interview with The New York Times editorial board, is more extreme than that of other lawmakers who have confronted tech executives about the legal protection from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms," Biden said in the interview published Friday. The bill became law in the mid-1990s to help still-nascent tech firms avoid being bogged down in legal battles. But as tech companies have amassed more power and billions of dollars, many lawmakers across the political spectrum along with Attorney General William Barr, agree that some reforms of the law and its enforcement are likely warranted. But revoking the clause in its entirety would have major implications for tech platforms and may still fail to produce some of the desired outcomes. Section 230 allows for tech companies to take "good faith" measures to moderate content on their platforms, meaning they can take down content they consider violent, obscene or harassing without fear of legal retribution.
Democracy... (Score:2)
The way "we tell you" that you should be "allowed" have it!
Re: Democracy... (Score:3, Informative)
If Facebook took that work and published under their own name, then sure you could claim they are liable. But the users are identified, so Facebook is just a platform, akin to a telephone call between users, unlike say CNN who pay their contributors for articles and such, and publish it in their name.
Re: Democracy... (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is Facebook actively polices their content, has published user guidelines on what is or is not acceptable, and can (and have) hide or completely remove content for any number of reasons.
They are already assuming a role of curator, which implies that any content that remains public does so with the tacit approval of Facebook. Therefore, it stands to reason, that if Facebook has the ability, authority and willfulness to moderate harmful content, but doesn't, they should be liable for that harm.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying the best legal position is to totally and completely willfully negligent and ensure you have demonstrably no significant ability nor effort in place to even partially police content?
Re: Democracy... (Score:4, Interesting)
It worked for the phone companies. They could have paid listeners to vet each conversation for political correctness, etc. but they don't. It's been done this way in other countries, so I suppose the analogy is a good one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think their user agreement has indemnification though, so once you sue Facebook, they turn around and say to the judge "we are indemnified by the user, so and so". Then the court will dismiss the suit against Facebook and you can sue the user.
It doesn't work like that. If I buy a product from a fly-by-night vendor in China and sell it to you in my store and you get seriously injured by it, I can't just point to an indemnification waiver when they disappear like a fart in the wind. The injured party has a joint liability claim against both and can go after either, the indemnification is just an agreement about who's first in line but it won't stop the claim rolling until the victim got theirs. So Facebook can try to hold the user liable but if he
Re: Democracy... (Score:5, Interesting)
Except, Facebook can't possibly police all their content. No site that allows anyone to comment can. I've seen some horrible hate speech on Slashdot. It's usually modded to -1 and all but hidden, but it's there. Should Slashdot be held liable for allowing those users to post those comments? Should Slashdot have to hire moderators who will read each comment and approve it before it goes on the site?
What about copyrighted material? The same rule that Biden wants to get rid of also helps protect sites from liability if copyrighted material is posted to their site. I wrote a book that admittedly few people read. Thus, while the content is copyrighted, few would know who owns the copyright if a random person posted a chapter of the book. Should website moderators be required to know every book, movie, photo, etc in existence and who has rights to post them in order to keep unauthorized copyrighted material from being posted. And before anyone comments, "you can just use an automated system", there are two problems with this: 1) they are fallible so you might deny content that's fine or approve content that gets you in legal hot water and 2) they can be expensive so smaller sites might not be able to afford them.
Getting rid of this law would be the end of many online sites that take user content like Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
Like probably many people here, I have occasionally moderated content on a website (beyond just voting; I mean deleting rows from a database).
When I do that, I don't think of it as tacitly approving what I didn't delete. I think of it as not-disapproving. Especially when I go on some kind of delete-hundreds-of-rows-rampage, I'm just targeting some spammerbots, it doesn
Re: Democracy... (Score:3)
I disagree. Analyzing posts for advertising is, frankly, primitive. Suppose I post that you had sex with a goat twenty years ago. That would be defamatory, unless it were true. But how the hell would Slashdot or Google or Facebook know one way or the other based on their attempts to sell ad space such that you'll see it? Especially if you don't go around posting online about goat sex?
A newspaper would have a human fact checker; they would never post such a thing unless they had solid evidence. Are you propo
Re: Democracy... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a different law, specifically passed to shield online content providers. Telephone networks neither make editorial decisions about which phone calls to let through, nor in fact listen to phone calls at all. They are protected because they don't know and make no decisions about what calls to allow.
With companies like Facebook, obviously, that is different. They DO make decisions about what to allow and what not to allow. Therefore, a new law was required specifically to shield them from liability. This law is called The Communications Decency Act, and it makes special allowances for online companies that do not exist for traditional telecommunications or broadcasting companies.
In fact, this law even shields companies like YouTube from monitized content that they exercise editorial control over, and profit from. So they are no different from CNN, except that CNN would be liable if they published libel, while YouTube is not.
That is the reason we need to do away with this law. It makes special exceptions just for companies that are "online," even when they are doing the exact same thing a more traditional company would be liable for.
Re: (Score:3)
Your snide, facile attempt at an argument holds no water, sorry.
As I mentioned, CNN exercises editorial control over content, the same as YouTube. The difference is only that YouTube typically does so after you put the video online. The difference is, or should be, immaterial from a liability point of view. If YouTube profits off of content that would land a broadcaster like CNN in hot water, why should they not also be liable?
Try using an actual argument constructed from premises and logical operations, ra
Re: (Score:3)
Except all the content put on CNN goes on CNN after editorial review, and it's handled by employees in departments structured to plan, produce, and review before publication.
Facebook is a communications and publishing platform wherein anyone and everyone can publish content. It turns out the resources required to publicize content are now much, much lower than the resources to review content (think about how much air time there is given the limited number of radio and programming channels, versus the inf
Re: (Score:3)
Just being technical...but unless they are advocating for direct violence against someone, in your example there...the police have no right to stop them from exercising their free sp
Re: (Score:2)
Only so long as you're TDS certified.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except for the fact that online companies do exercise editorial content, all the time. Sure, SOME content may not have been viewed by anyone at the company, but some content is viewed. And some of that content is kept up, while other content is removed. Companies exercise editorial control over content and remove content that will hurt their bottom line.
Why should companies be allowed to exercise some control, but not held liable, even for content they saw and approved? I mean, I get that vetting each piece
Re: Democracy... (Score:4, Interesting)
It actually came in 1996. CDA 230 was a reaction against the court decision Cubby, Inc. vs CompuServe and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy where CompuServe and Prodigy were found liable for user content because they tried to moderate their forums at all. Good times. I, for one, am looking forward to endless spam on every comment-enabled website I visit if CDA 230 goes away.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is he running for president?
Four more years of Trump.
It's like the Republicans don't even have to campaign. The Democrats defeat themselves.
Re:Democracy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, Jesus Christ these people. I despise Trump, loathe him. Not for the usual TDS reasons, I don't think his actual policies are as bad as claimed but because he's an embarrassing, corrupt, narcissistic buffoon of a lying fucking corrupt, senile hypocrite and is not to be trusted.
At the same time, I will absolutely not vote under any circumstances for Warren or Sanders. This issue of Biden's nuttiness isn't enough to add him to that list, but it's certainly not helping him. The Democrats really need to let this bullshit go, Facebook did not get Trump elected, your own idiocy did.
Re: (Score:2)
The old guard of the Democratic party needs to just get off the stage.
Not only do I think they're a weak crowd that is pecking itself to death every debate, but they clearly didn't have what it took to beat Trump last time.
I guess they're hoping he gets impeached and they can just lame duck on in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. Nothing President Trump has done has curtailed any of my freedom. That is all this loony batch of Democrats has talked about. That is what Obama constantly overreached to do. I'll grit my teeth and vote for Trump over any of these fectless moonbats.
Re: (Score:2)
The left has already started to eat itself with Warren and Sanders getting into a fight.
Re:Democracy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Possibly because Sanders is becoming a very serious threat, much like he was to Hillary in 2016, to Biden, the DNC's chosen one for 2020. However they don't want Biden to look petty or mean to Sanders either, and hell, Warren's ratings are tanking, so they push her to go after Sanders, because he 'needs' to get knocked back down.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
> like Citizens United said when they rewrote the Constitution and corrected the First Amendment
What? Are you saying that someone cannot produce a film critical of a politician during an election? Citizens United in a nutshell: A private citizen used their own money to create a video critical of Hillary Clinton and tried to release it during a federal election. It wasn't a contribution to her opponent. The fist amendment is primarily about protecting that kind of speech.
>money equals speech and more m
Re: (Score:3)
That is the one of the most idiotic comments on Slashdot in a long time. Senators represent the entire state. They don't have districts. Both Senators represent you.
"Zuckerberg" (Score:3, Interesting)
It is funny how much people disrespect Zuckerberg. They just call him "Zuckerberg" and not "Mr. Zuckerberg" like you would normally address a man. Not that I blame them. He is beneath contempt.
Re: (Score:2)
If that is disrespect apparently we do it with Biden as well... "Biden said in the interview"
I think in general people are shedding the extra formalities and protocol of the past. People don't say Master Biden or Master Zuckerberg anymore, every head of house used to be Master/Mister. Now it's just an extra word and really how much respect does it denote when you apply it to every random anonymous person regardless of your sentiment toward them?
Re: (Score:2)
Biden makes me think of Bidet.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but in this case this is a politician speaking about another person in an interview. I would never talk about someone in an interview and call him by only his surname, unless I was being disrespectful. Good journalists still use the term "Mr. Biden" or "Senator Biden".
Why is "Zuckerberg" even a thing? (Score:2)
It's part of the fame thing. When you become famous enough you become a thing, and if people refer to any particular thing a lot, then they naturally want to reduce the time spent in referring to the thing.
"Biden" is actually awkward in that there's no obvious reduction. The minimum reduction for "Zuckerberg" is obviously "Zuck", but there's no ambiguity in either case, even though there are lots of other people with similar names. In almost every context where you'd see one-word references to Zuckerberg, y
Re: (Score:2)
In any case the point being it is actually less and less common to hear someone called master or mister and if you hear someone called mistress it is likely in a very specialized context.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I like "Zuckerfucker". Works better if you pronounce the first part in German.
Re: (Score:2)
It is funny how much people disrespect Zuckerberg. They just call him "Zuckerberg" and not "Mr. Zuckerberg" like you would normally address a man.
Just like they do Trump, or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton.....
Exactly (Score:2)
It's a free platform. Don't use it if you don't like it.
not this shit again.jpg (Score:2)
No. (Score:5, Informative)
Without that law the internet becomes cable TV. All other websites shut down as the lawsuits fly and prosecutors come after you.
Case in point, if you've got Chinese gold farmers overrunning your MMO forums just post a Winnie the Pooh meme and watch as China blocks it. Sounds fun until you think about what else the gov't can do with that power.
The open internet rests on two: Net Neutrality and Section 230. AOC was right. Biden doesn't belong in the Democratic party. My choice in politicians is pretty well known, but this is a do not pass go, do not collect $200 event. If you care about the Internet and don't want to see it be Cable Television tell your friends and family (especially the older ones likely to vote Biden).
Biden has been attacking the Internet for 30 years (Score:5, Informative)
Biden has been an enemy of the Internet since the 1990s when he and Lieberman made the Communications Decency Act, where stating a curse word on a public forum would make the sender, receiver, and everyone in between culpable for 5-20, Federal PMITA time. Biden wanted to ban crypto, which caused PRZ to write PGP in the first place. Biden championed SOPA and PIPA. He also wrote the DMCA.
His batting average for Internet freedoms is 0. Any other candidate would be better.
Good to know (Score:2)
I have YouTube to thank for knowing this [youtu.be] and this [youtu.be].
In hindsight the fact that he's a Senator from Delaware, where companies incorporate to do bad things, should have tipped me off. But until this latest run I geniunely thought he was "middle class Joe". I fell for his messaging and ignored his policy.
It honestly wasn't until I had a couple family members get sick, not just die quickly and I discovered what the American Healthcare system was really
Re: (Score:2)
That and hitting a wall in my career due to outsourcing and H1-Bs.
Both parties sacrificed out the middle classes decades ago on the alter of free trade and mass immigration. I don't care for Trump's style but he is the *only* person to really try and do anything about unbalanced trade and immigration. It's an amazing thing to think that the Democrats want to win so badly that they will destroy the middle class and citizens standards of living just for winning a popularity contest and cheap gardeners.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he's really trying (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Biden has been an enemy of the Internet since the 1990s when he and Lieberman made the Communications Decency Act, where stating a curse word on a public forum would make the sender, receiver, and everyone in between culpable for 5-20, Federal PMITA time. Biden wanted to ban crypto, which caused PRZ to write PGP in the first place. Biden championed SOPA and PIPA. He also wrote the DMCA.
His batting average for Internet freedoms is 0. Any other candidate would be better.
Biden is a true idiot, not unlike Trump but more shielded by the media. He will get destroyed by Trump as there is a ton of dumb things he's said and done through the years. Really the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner again as they chased away any decent candidates that could have had a unifying effect and we're left with 3 really old people and the in over his head gay mayor. I was hoping Andrew Yang would make the last debate to keep it interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how when Obama was president everyone loved Biden. Not one single whisper of disapproval.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
That ship has already sailed.
All other websites shut down as the lawsuits fly and prosecutors come after you.
WRONG. It's really easy. If you don't want to be subject to lawsuits, you simply don't moderate content. Easy-Peasy, free speech restored as the "public square" is supposed to be. ***
The big platforms will have that choice, too. Do they want to continue to be ideological safe-spaces for the corporate hegemony and the establishment media voices, and face litigation, or open up their platforms to democratic discussion?
I would love to see that play out, warts and all.
*** NOTE: Il
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In the public square you are just as anonymous and you can disappear just as quickly unless someone can trace you home. Which is pretty much the equivalent on the Internet, in fact, on the Internet you're less anonymous and easier to trace. The online public square is bigger, that's all, but policing it isn't very difficult and is often done by your run of the mill police footwork.
And your comparison with video games doesn't even work, even in the real world you can play simulated murder, driving and war ga
Solutions via accountability? (Score:2)
Mod parent up and I wish I had a mod point for you.
I would generalize in a slightly different way, focusing on the tendency to politely trust strangers too much. That leads to my solution approach of MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation) to basically hold people to account for their opinions.
My main use for MEPR would be to filter in favor of the people who are most worth my time. That's both positive and negative. I want to be able to more easily see people who have earned positive reputations i
Re: (Score:2)
WRONG. Republication liability [rcfp.org] does not care whether you moderate content or not. If you republish a defamatory statement, you are liable for that defamatory statement just as if you'd made the defamatory statement yourself. The one thing that protects websites from republication liability is section 230 of the CDA [cornell.edu]:
Re: (Score:2)
Under that doctrine, if a journalist in a paper publishes that x said y about z where y is considered defamatory, the paper is liable? That would severely impact free speech protections.
In the US at least defamatory speech is still protected under the first amendment, what is not guaranteed is freedom from civil liability due to your speech - hence why CNN can say many defamatory things about Trump (because he's part of the government) but not about Nick Sandmann.
But a platform that simply records (not repu
Re: (Score:2)
This is well covered by existing law. The government can't suppress speech, but is not required to provide a platform for you. If you want one, make one. Same with other sites, no matter the size. FB, Google, mystupidwebsite.com, whatever. They are NOT required to host your content, nor should they be. It's also beyond stupid to say that they should be liable for someone else's content. A publisher chooses each individual item they publish. A platform removes things that violate their rules as they are made
Re: (Score:3)
AOC was right.
Is this the same AOC that was pressuring Zuckerberg about fact-checking users posts?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No. No. No. I didn't like Biden before this but now he's human garbage.
There is the response you're supposed to have to articles like this. Completely emotional.
There are presently 1,027 folks registered with the FEC as running for president in the 2020 election and 16 of those are (12 democrat and 4 republican) or notable. This is an editorial about one of them, the current democratic front runner. The goal of the article is to take your opinion of Joe Biden down a few rungs, not to explain the issue or discuss the various views of main candidates.
Re: No. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Biden is the strongest candidate imho to beat Trump. What the far-left wing of the Democrats (which comprises between 25-30% of the party) are doing by promoting Warren/Sanders is normalizing their platform for future Democrats. When you look at the pick rates, not amongst Democrats but all voters including independents and undecided in key states, Biden is a landslide closer to a win over Trump than any of the other candidates, the delta between Biden and Sanders in Iowa, New Hampshire etc is in the double
Re: (Score:2)
>Biden is the strongest candidate imho to beat Trump
I just look forward to those debates. Good gravy that will be comedy gold. Between Biden mumbling gaffe after gaffe and Trump going on tirades about mooning people or bringing in sexual assault victims of Bill Clinton on front row.
I can imagine it now. Biden recalls his leg hair shining in the sunshine during the 50's while Burisma executives on the front row watch in horror as Trump interjects about Hunter smoking crack.
God bless America.
No No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"No. No. No. I didn't like Biden before this but now he's human garbage."
Trump has been human garbage this whole time; so this doesn't really move the pendulum much by my reckoning.
"All other websites shut down as the lawsuits fly and prosecutors come after you."
Not 'all' other websites, just big-social-media. Anyone else is going to be same-old same-old.
And big-social-media isn't going to just let themselves get wiped off the map. The odds of Biden getting something through both houses that puts google and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do think that so-called 'social media' needs to go the way of the dinosaurs, though. It's to
Indeed. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I bought a refurbished AOC monitor over 10 years ago and it's still running just fine.
What is the logic? (Score:4, Interesting)
There would need to be a FULL explanation of a new bill like that.
When there are billions of posted comments every day, it would be very easy for a company not to discover a bad comment.
Also, there can be sentences that have different meanings for different people.
Biden has a history of not thinking clearly. An article about that: Why Joe Biden’s Gaffes Matter [newyorker.com] (Aug. 13, 2019)
Re:What is the logic? (Score:4, Insightful)
His donors want this (Score:5, Insightful)
Biden Gaffs a lot, and he's not all there in the head [twitter.com] (the theory is he's sundowning [duckduckgo.com], but when it comes to policy he knows exactly which side his bread is buttered on [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians say what their audience wants to hear. Uncle Joe was talking to a group that he thought wanted to hear this. Whether or not he is in full possession of is faculties doesn't even matter.
Of course it's stupid. Doesn't matter. You know the old saying: "How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving..."
Facebook will love it (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook has the money to hire an army of moderators. But small to medium sized competitors will not.
Any news site with a comments section, any blog in that manner will be subject to this. In fact it might even include the entire *.wordpress.com domains.
Big companies on the other hand will have another "regulatory capture" on their belt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It appears you think the solution is to refrain from moderating at all. I doubt the practicality of that. Say you operated a website with a comment section, and someone started posting child abuse depictions, links to web pages that exploit vulnerabilities in a commonly used web browser to breach your site's visitors' information security, or other material that courts have deemed to fall outside free speech. Would you want to continue to republish this illegal material and have it associated with your bran
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily small to medium sized competitors wouldn't need an army to moderate.
Police State Candidate (Score:2)
Partially a OK and partially a very bad idea (Score:3)
I wonder why always get this as an undifferentiated suggestion: content is not always of the same type.
Example:
Make it that way, and Social Media will be a better place in 15 minutes.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. His statement has some issues and cuts hard across some very important laws that enable today's Internet. But even in your definitions there are problems. You wrote about something being offensive, that's nearly impossible to quantify in law. You wrote about if something is used for their own advantage being a qualifier, it would likely need to be more nuanced then that since everything users post is potentially to the site's advantage.
The difficulty with this type of law is how to draw the line, and
If you exercise editorial control of comments (Score:2)
I might even go so far as saying articles you let in also apply, msmash.
Like Facebook... (Score:3)
Vague is a Plague (Score:2)
Open-ended and vague laws are often the worse, turning it into legal warfare that the largest firms tend to win.
A more concrete law could require all messages containing any of a set of key-words periodically downloadable from a central agency be inspected by human reviewers within a time-frame. In addition, require X human reviewer hours be spent for every Y words posted.
I know it's not perfect, but at least has relatively clear requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly disagree.
I think the law uses good terms here. Trying to codify exactly what is offensive, exactly what is harmful, exactly what is forbidden, is an impossible action. While whitelists and blacklists have tremendous convenience, such lists are always reactionary and prone to serious abuses. They are slow to adopt new terms, slow to relinquish old terms, are troublesome when terms require context, and vary by communities.
The law instead uses well understood but loose phrases, like "good faith" eff
freeze peach not what you think (Score:2)
Once again, submitter and commenters show their ignorance of the Constitution.
"Free speech" says only that the government may not make a law restricting speech (with some qualifications).
Anybody else, be it a private person or a public or private company, has absolutely no requirement to publish, disseminate, or allow in any way, any kind of speech at all. If I run a social forum, and I don't want to publish your rant, that's it. End of story. That decision is totally up to me. If you find a lawyer dumb eno
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, no. As a private citizen operating a forum, that is certainly correct. But large commercially operated services are a bit different. Essentially, if Facebook decides to remove your comment, they are denying you access to a service. They need a plausible reason for that and are not allowed to do this arbitrarily.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, no. As a private citizen operating a forum, that is certainly correct. But large commercially operated services are a bit different. Essentially, if Facebook decides to remove your comment, they are denying you access to a service. They need a plausible reason for that and are not allowed to do this arbitrarily.
I think that's incorrect. Please cite your sources to back up your assertion.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you are citing the case of "Making vs Stuff Up". Unless you'd like to cite another basis for your belief? Mine is over here in CDA 230: "(1) No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." and "(2) No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of
They don't need a reason (Score:2)
Companies can refuse service to anyone. And to top it off Facebook is a free service.
Go away Joe (Score:2)
You are the candidate neither party wants, nor deserves.
So he wants censorship (Score:2)
Because the only way somebody like Facebook can get a handle on this is by pre-censoring everything automatically and doing it as aggressively as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just making it clear that it happens before. It does make complete sense, it is just somewhat redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
Challenges elderly man to push ups (Score:3)
Thought Crime (Score:4, Insightful)
Hello Citizen - it looks like you posted a negative comment on Facebook about The Leader.
Such writings are now illegal, because words are now weapons that could damage The Party. The best thing is not to say anything. Even better not to even think it in the first place.
You will be sent to a re-education camp for behaviour-correction therapy so you can become a loyal, productive worker again.
All hail Joe Biden.
Bye bye slashdot. (Score:2)
Just lost my vote, not that he ever had it (Score:2)
It is unfortunate that anybody outside of the finance/insurance/real estate industry supports this man
We need to rid ourselves of the DNC/GOP monopoly
FB wants to have its cake and eat it too (Score:2)
They want the platform protections of section 230 BUT they want the publishing prerogative of a newspaper, deciding what people can and can not say.
Pick one. Platform or publisher. Pick one
Sick no matter how you look at it. (Score:2)
1. A politician wants to revoke safe harbor because the company isn't censoring like the politician wants. Biden joins an ever-growing club from both parties.
2. This will crush facebook stock. Good luck with that and the retirement funds of millions of people, politician wanting election.
Well, there goes that guys shot at the presidency (Score:2)
Now he's got the social media lobby against him, and there is plenty of money there to keep him from getting elected.