FCC Republican Voices Doubts About Trump's Executive Order (axios.com) 133
Republican Federal Communications Commissioner Mike O'Rielly said he's unsure whether his agency has the authority to carry out President Trump's executive order targeting tech firms' legal protections. From a report: Trump's order seeks to have the FCC craft regulations limiting the scope of legal immunity that online platforms have under federal law. All three commission Republicans would need to support such regulations for them to pass, as the FCC's two Democrats are certain to oppose them. In an interview Wednesday for C-SPAN's "The Communicators," O'Rielly told Axios he sympathizes with the president's claims that conservatives have been unfairly stifled online, but "what we do about that is a different story. I have deep reservations they provided any intentional authority for this matter, but I want to listen to people," O'Rielly said, later adding, "I do not believe it is the right of the agency to read into the statute authority that is not there."
I can't recall this in the past (Score:2)
I can't say I'm even remotely an Inside Baseball kinda guy when it comes to US politics, but I don't recall anything like what I'm seeing now. The military brass is basically going out in public and dissing the prez (*that* has happened in the past, but it never ends well), and now you have department heads basically saying "no, I don't think I want to do that". Strange times indeed.
The same thing the FCC said about "Network Neutral (Score:2)
The Republican FCC members were saying the same thing "network neutrality" during the Obama (and Bush) administrations - they think Congress has the authority to do these things, not them. So that's been consistent for quite a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Because in the past this sort of stuff was discussed and hashed out, maybe in cabinet meetings, maybe with other department heads. But I think Trump just makes this up on the fly, whatever pops into his head, and it catches everyone off guard including his allies.
Re:I can't recall this in the past (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: I can't recall this in the past (Score:2)
Obama had a lot of generals-that would normally stay out of politics- publicly talking about his incapacity as a leader, or multiple career senior government employees or appointees talking about how his actions are unconstitutional?
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of Obama's incapacity as leader, when the mission to whack bin Laden came up, he took the plunge. His generals claimed they didn't need that extra helicopter because they had confidence their two (if memory serves correct) would do. Obama insisted on a third just in case.
And that case came up when they screwed up in the compound and couldn't get enough lift. They wound up blowing the helicopter and that third one came in mighty handy.
Re:I can't recall this in the past (Score:5, Interesting)
Things like this have always happened, but it didn't make the front page of CNN when it was Obama.
No, under prior administrations - both Democratic and Republican - retired military have mostly kept their mouths shut regarding the actions of the sitting president. They've felt it wasn't their place, given the American model where the civilian president is the commander in chief of the armed forces. About as far as they'd go in the past was to serve as technical commentators for the various news networks. Also I recall Mattis criticizing Obama... AFTER Obama had left office (although even that is rare).
For that matter, prior to Trump's presidency it's been unusual (but not unknown) for former presidents of either party to criticize the actions of the current occupant of the White House. Well, except perhaps for Jimmy Carter.
Re: I can't recall this in the past (Score:2)
To add to that, it is also unusual for the sitting president to consistently blame the prior president on a weekly basis for nearly their entire first term.
Re:I can't recall this in the past (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump isn't trying to do anything. Seriously, you don't even try to provide any examples. All he does is golf, rage at the TV and eat cheeseburrders.
He's a con man, always has been and always will be. And you've been conned. He is also a colossal failure, having bankrupted every business he's ever attempted. He bankrupts casinos for God's sake, how does one even do that?!?!
He is the poor man's idea of a rich man, the dumb man's idea of a smart man, and the weak man's idea of a strong man.
Re:I can't recall this in the past (Score:5, Informative)
Trump tweets from 2014:
"No Bush, no Clinton, no RINOs, no golfing, no more handouts!! It's got to be @realDonaldTrump. Time for #Trump2016"
"We pay for Obama's travel so he can fundraise millions so Democrats can run on lies. Then we pay for his golf."
"Can you believe that,with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf."
I think Trump honestly doesn't see the hypocrisy there. Or know what the word means.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump isn't trying to do anything.
For a man who's not trying to do anything he certainly is putting a lot of effort into maximising the damage of a pandemic, and attempting to throw as much fuel on a burning riot from the sidelines as possible.
Seriously how can you claim that a president whose words enrage a nation and move stock markets, who spends a significant portion of his day tweeting to the public "isn't trying to do anything".
Being a conman and a failure as a businessman somehow relying only on his own name (as con-men often do), ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I can't recall this in the past (Score:2)
There's no more fighting in Syria or Afghanistan? Huh, would think that would have made the news......
Re: (Score:2)
He stopped nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What has Trump actually done to end corruption in politics? You have no examples. As for fighting with the mainstream media, note his relationship with Fox News, which is very mainstream. He was very much in love with them, until they dared criticize him.
Trump hates a free press, because he is a malignant narcissist who can not stomach criticism. He is an autocrat, plain and simple, and wants nothing less than the absolute destruction of democracy and the freedoms we take for granted.
Re: (Score:2)
What has Trump actually done to end corruption in politics? You have no examples. As for fighting with the mainstream media, note his relationship with Fox News, which is very mainstream. He was very much in love with them, until they dared criticize him.
He seems to be switching to OAN, now, since they're more consistently obsequious.
Re: (Score:2)
They're no point in arguing with Spun, as he has very fixed views on Trump that cannot be changed by evidence
Perhaps, but there is something to be said for his views in that they are absolutely correct. For him to provide evidence at this point would be gilding the lily; for you to ask for it is inane, and your chances of presenting anything that suggests that Trump is even slightly competent and beneficial for the US are nil.
Re:I can't recall this in the past (Score:5, Insightful)
All your posts are "Orange man good" but you provide no evidence. Because there is none. You aren't swaying anyone. You have not convinced a single soul. For all the effort you've put into this wild crusade to make Trump look good, you've achieved nothing.
It's all just hand waving, parroting of stock phrases like "drain the swamp" and "mainstream media" and invective. You've got nothing, meanwhile, the evidence of Trump's narcissism, senility, dishonesty, corruption, and authoritarianism grows day by day.
Show me ONE thing Trump has actually done to end corruption. Show me one thing he's done to change any system at all. You can't.
I mean, we both agree that the system needs change. And we might actually agree on what needs to be changed, like money in politics. But Trump has only made things much, much worse. He is the most incompetent and corrupt president we've ever had. Rather than draining any swamps, he's created several new ones.
You are simply lost in the sunk cost fallacy. After all your support, and wishful thinking, you are incapable of admitting, it's all just been a con by a fairly mediocre and very lazy con artist. To admit that would be to admit that your own judgement is fatally flawed.
You didn't even get conned by the best. You got conned by a sub-par, lazy, entitled man who inherited all his wealth, and blew through almost all of that in failed business after failed business.
Re: (Score:3)
He hasn't drained the swamp. He's replaced the salamanders and tadpoles with snapping turtles and alligators.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does that list include separating children from their parents at the border? Does it include getting Mexico to pay for a border wall? Does it include spending >$100M of taxpayer money playing golf at his own resorts? How about flying military personnel to Scotland to have taxpayers pay him for putting them up in his golf resort? Does it include the profits from the hotel in DC that he has illegally leased from the US government? Does it include the IGs he or his subordinates have fired to allow gifting
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of the USA is too horrified by how Trump is failing to care much about BIden right now.
Trump's going to lose, and then he will be indicted and thrown in jail where he belongs.
Re: (Score:2)
This list is ridiculous and attempts to take credit for the economy without mentioning anything he actually did to achieve success. Just a bunch of statistics that stem from Obama. Presidents can't impact the economy overnight, it takes most at least one term to have any impact. The rest of the list is just bullshit. Including overturning Obamacare as an accomplishment? Where's the replacement?
Sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is Trump orange? How do you explain his skin colour?
I mean he's supposed to be rich, why does he have a dollar store tan?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, don't pick on Orange-Americans! They are people too.
I would say that there are good people on both sides of the orange-nonorange divide, but that seems unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Orange lives matter!
Re: (Score:2)
A marvelous example of you adding value to Slashdot, lgw? Apparently not. Perhaps you should be the one to never post here again.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump spews catchphrase nonsense daily, and if it gets no reaction, by the next day it's dead and buried. If it gets a reaction, he repeats it endlessly with no plan of attack, giving the illusion he's doing something. He then tells everyone that he's done it more than any other president, without having done anything but rant. He constantly threatens action with power he doesn't have, and openly lies about doing things he can't. He railed against "the swamp", and then filled his cabinet with Wall Stree
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And authoritarian regimes everywhere celebrate. Too bad for our would-be American autocrats, the public appears to have awoken to this danger to democracy, thanks in no small part to Trump's absolute incompetence. I can only imagine how bad things would be if someone halfway competent had the reigns of power. These autocratic elites spent five decades setting the stage for the destruction of American democracy, and Trump ham-handedly undercuts the whole thing in less than four years.
Undoing what Obama did? (Score:3)
Any examples? It seems to me mostly what Trump is trying to do is undoing what Obama did.
For example, Obama did DACA, Trump undid it.
Obama's administration did net neutrality, Trump's undid it.
Obama required that you have proof of health insurance, Trump (mostly) undid that.
Obama put in a rule that mines have to stop work every few days and wait for a government inspector to inspect the work so far. Trump undid that, saying inspectors could I again inspect the site WHILE miners are working.
I could go on f
Re: (Score:2)
You just described what he did, though. He walked back the power of government, when it only ever ratchets up. He also moved us away from globalism, if only a little, by incentivizing corporations to bring jobs back here, and putting some token tariffs on Chinese goods. Globalism only goes the other way, don't you know? It's not that these are big radical steps, after all he's fighting a bureaucracy older than him, but even making the slightest structural change is not done in DC. See my reply to Spun
I didn't read before I replied. Trump is weird (Score:3)
I just realized I didn't read your post very well before I replied to it.
I would agree Trump is different - weird. I suspect most agree with that. Whether you agree or disagree with him on specific issues or whether you just "like" or "dislike" him, he's different.
Actually I think that's largely why Trump got the Republican nomination despite being the opposite of a traditional Republican nominee in many ways, and eventually won the presidency. Despite #nevertrump. The Rs had several people running that we
Re: (Score:2)
Back in mid-2016 I felt the same about the primary, but I think that understates it. Trump won the primary because he's the opposite of a traditional Republican nominee in many ways. The base doesn't need the same stale promises they've had for 20 years to no useful result, they need structural change. On both the right and the left! Your average Bernie Bro isn't a wild-eyed socialist. Everyone is getting wise to the fact that the establishment is pursuing their own interests entirely now, and any bene
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Trump might have had notional ideas of change, but at this point he's not changing anything, at least with change defined as change motivated by a plan or some kind of agency. Maybe he started out that way, but I think he found himself quickly isolated on both sides of the aisle and just wound out selling out to the Republicans and adopting their party line. They agreed to tolerate him if he agreed to carry their water.
I do agree that a big chunk of the electorate is dissatisfied and that the reas
Re: (Score:3)
Ascribing any sort of strategy to Trump is well beyond all evidence to the contrary. He's a bull in a China shop and doesn't realize where the expensive stuff is, so he bumps into it and knocks it over. People like you mistake this for a strategy when it is mere incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in this case, Trump feels he is personally being treated unfairly, I doubt he cares one whit about anyone else. All the news he follows, such as Breitbart or OANN, are the chief purveyors of fake news and hyperbole. He honestly thinks he can get Twitter, Facebook, and the Washington Post shut down without it ever affecting his extremist media of choice. This is another way in which he seems to be thinking like an autocrat rather than as a leader for an entire country including those with opposing p
Re: (Score:2)
Fyi Trump's order was for his administration to check to see whether Facebook etc were following section 230.
Re: (Score:2)
Fyi Trump's order was for his administration to check to see whether Facebook etc were following section 230.
Huh... How would that work? Can you point out any part of the law that there is anything "to see whether Facebook etc were following"?
There is nothing in the law for Facebook, etc. to follow. The law simply grants them protection from allegations of malfeasance. It does not require them to do (or not do) anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Note here I'm just saying what Trump's order does and what the law is around it. I'm not taking any position one way or the other on what SHOULD be. I only *read* Trump's order, I didn't write it.
The interesting bit for this discussion is:
--
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account ofâ"
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's order was specifically about the "good faith" part, though, and objected to removing material without providing a clear reason, or via pretexting (consistently removing only objectionable material that opposes your ideology). His order reads like it was written by lawyers, which presumably it was, and presumably they know their jobs.
Enigma Software Grp. USA, LLC v. Malwarebytes, Inc (Score:2)
What exactly that bit in the law means is of course up to a judge to decide in a particular case, and different judges will come to different conclusions with different facts. Having said that, the requirement is NOT "objectionable content". It's also not "do whatever you want". The standard is:
"Obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable."
One might well argue the same thought could be expressed as:
"obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent,
Re: Enigma Software Grp. USA, LLC v. Malwarebytes, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please, Trump hasn't done shit except for giving tax cuts to the rich. Please tell me more about all of his amazing achievements.
Re: (Score:2)
The military brass is basically going out in public and dissing the prez
FORMER brass.
Yes, FORMER brass. ALL current brass will become former brass. And when they become former brass they can voice their opinions about their commanders in public, not before. They have a name for those who do it while in command: Insubordination.
Disband the FCC (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, why don’t you start the process of getting an Amendment to the Constitution for your proposal. When that passes then Congress can do what you ask.
What? Congress created the FCC when they passed the Communications Act of 1934. Congress can eliminate it (which would be stupid) legislatively. There's absolutely no need for a Constitutional Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So when Congress created Sallie Mae in 1972 and then terminated its federal charter in 2004, did it need a constitutional amendment? I don't seem to recall that happening. When the Interstate Commerce Commission was created by Congress in 1887 and abolished by Congress in 1995, was there an amendment to the Constitution then? I don't think so.
These are just two of many examples of Congress creating, then eliminating federal agencies. By your logic, only the Executive can create federal agencies, which
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again you understand the role of Congress is not administration right? The function of Congress is to create legislation. To that end, Congress can create different administrative agencies; however, they are under the control of the Executive Branch.
The argument isn't whether agencies are under the control of the executive, the argument is over your ridiculous claim that it takes a constitutional amendment for Congress to eliminate a federal agency. I need present only one example to the contrary to disprove your ignorant claim. You got two. Why you ignore these examples and continue to try and support an unsupportable position is beyond me. Your sorry attempt to change the subject doesn't help you one little bit.
If you can’t accept what is clearly written in the Constitution, there’s no helping you. Name one administrative agency that is under Congress. Name just one.
That has fuck-all to do with the ar
Re: (Score:2)
The argument isn't whether agencies are under the control of the executive, the argument is over your ridiculous claim that it takes a constitutional amendment for Congress to eliminate a federal agency.
The OP claimed no such thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The OP claimed no such thing.
The OOP said:
"The FCC needs to be disbanded. If it's an area that needs to be regulated federally (which I think it is) then Congress needs to do it directly. Abdicating their authority to an unelected board of "experts" who aren't accountable to anyone is not the job of government. Congress needs to be having open debates on the floors of the House and Senate about this stuff. DISBAND THE FCC!"
The only way you're correct is if UnknowingFool ignored or somehow didn't read OOP's first and last sentences. Furthermore, the statement I made in my first post on the matter was basically "Congress can eliminate the FCC without the need for a constitutional amendment." I've made that statement in every post since. If that's not what he's talking about, then he's had plenty of time to say so. He hasn't.
Of course, the other parts of OOP's post ("Congress needs to do it [regulate] directl
Re: (Score:2)
"The FCC needs to be disbanded. If it's an area that needs to be regulated federally (which I think it is) then Congress needs to do it directly. Abdicating their authority to an unelected board of "experts" who aren't accountable to anyone is not the job of government. Congress needs to be having open debates on the floors of the House and Senate about this stuff. DISBAND THE FCC!"
Lacks the words amendment and constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Lacks the words amendment and constitution.
Not sure what point you're trying to make.
Re: (Score:2)
"Passing legislation"
Article 2: " To administer the federal government, the president commissions all the offices of the federal government as Congress directs; he or she may require the opinions of its principal officers and make "recess appointments" for vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate."
Congress can pass all the legislation they want,; they are not to administer such legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC needs to be disbanded. If it's an area that needs to be regulated federally (which I think it is) then Congress needs to do it directly.
I don't see the words 'constitutional' or 'amendment' here.
Sure, why donâ(TM)t you start the process of getting an Amendment to the Constitution for your proposal. When that passes then Congress can do what you ask.
Which was in response to your suggestion, pointing out it was ridiculous. They did not claim that it required one, but that your absurdity would.
Re: (Score:2)
Article 2: " To administer the federal government, the president commissions all the offices of the federal government as Congress directs; he or she may require the opinions of its principal officers and make "recess appointments" for vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate."
Congress can pass all the legislation they want,; they are not to administer such legislation.
Nowhere in the Constitution does the word "administer" (or any variant thereof) exist.
I think a lot of this can be cleared up if you'll just point us to the executive branch agency that administers copyright law. Go ahead, we'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument isn't whether agencies are under the control of the executive, the argument is over your ridiculous claim that it takes a constitutional amendment for Congress to eliminate a federal agency.
Please cite where I said that. You cannot, can you?
The OP said: "If it's an area that needs to be regulated federally (which I think it is) then Congress needs to do it directly." To which I responded, Congress as defined by the Constitution cannot do that. That is an administrative or Executive Branch function. To do that directly requires changing the role of Congress from legislation to administration and requires an Amendment.
I need present only one example to the contrary to disprove your ignorant claim. You got two.
What are you examples? You have failed to cite one example.
Why you ignore these examples and continue to try and support an unsupportable position is beyond me. Your sorry attempt to change the subject doesn't help you one little bit.
That has fuck-all to do with the argument at hand. But since you asked, here. [wikipedia.org]
None of those agenc
Re: (Score:2)
Please cite where I said that. You cannot, can you?
The OP said: "If it's an area that needs to be regulated federally (which I think it is) then Congress needs to do it directly." To which I responded, Congress as defined by the Constitution cannot do that. That is an administrative or Executive Branch function. To do that directly requires changing the role of Congress from legislation to administration and requires an Amendment.
Uh huh. Well, when you remove 80% of OP's post, you kinda lose a little context, don't you? OP proposed "disband the FCC". In fact, he said it twice. If that wasn't the part of the post you were challenging, you could have quoted the part you were challenging in your response. But you didn't. In fact, when I responded with "an amendment isn't required to disband the FCC" you could have mentioned then that that wasn't what you were talking about. But you didn't. When I gave you examples of Congress e
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC needs to be disbanded. If it's an area that needs to be regulated federally (which I think it is) then Congress needs to do it directly. Abdicating their authority to an unelected board of "experts" who aren't accountable to anyone is not the job of government. Congress needs to be having open debates on the floors of the House and Senate about this stuff. DISBAND THE FCC!
You have no clue how our government works. Congress created the FCC [wikipedia.org] to do just what they are doing.
If you do not like what they are doing, well vote out the current members of Congress.
Have nice day.
Re:Disband the FCC (Score:4, Informative)
The FCC needs to be disbanded.
What a genuinely stupid idea.
Congress can't legislate in fine detail on a myriad of technical subjects, and no one wants them to, despite everyone agreeing that such regulation is necessary. For example, do you want Congressmen to decide the mandatory maintenance items for aircraft, because you also want to disband the FAA? I know I wouldn't want to be in a plane -- or under one -- in those circumstances.
The authority to regulate comes from Congress and they can delegate the task of working out the details to administrative agencies, and this has not been a matter of debate for almost a hundred years. Congress can still override regulations they dislike, and can modify the delegation of powers to the agency, reform it, etc. as they like. In the meantime, we get to live in a society that's more complex than some villages with blacksmiths.
The FCC agrees with you (Score:2)
> Abdicating their authority to an unelected board of "experts" who aren't accountable to anyone is not the job of government. Congress needs to be having open debates on the floors of the House and Senate about this stuff.
That's what the FCC is saying here.
It's the same thing they said about network neutrality. People have different definitions of what that even means.
The FCC board decided that if Congress wants something that someone thinks makes things more fair, Congress should pass a law, saying wh
Re: (Score:2)
> unelected board of "experts" who aren't accountable to anyone is not the job of government
Let me make sure I understand your argument:
You are saying that it is a bad thing that people who actually know what they are talking about get to make rules. And on top of that, it's also a bad thing that people who have no idea about that topic can't override them due to purely political reasons?
Ok, you run with that. But not the scissors.
Re: Disband the FCC (Score:2)
Congress created the FCC, with a specific mandate so that it can focus on enforcing laws and regulations around communication. By doing so congress delegates this work, so congress can focus on other elements of running the country.
The current notion of disbanding or defunding elements of the government is dangerous and gives more power to those who would do harm. Reforming with the goal of fixing specific problems is fine, but removing a department without a suitable replacement is damaging.
Tomorrow's News (Score:5, Funny)
Tomorrow's News:
"Federal Communications Commissioner Mike O'Rielly resigned from his post on short notice. His interim replacement, ___________, has been a long-time supporter of President Trump."
Re: (Score:3)
Too bad I can't mod this to +1 Sad, but true
Re: (Score:2)
Followed by a tweet that has the word "overrated" in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wot's this then? A Republican stooge questioning the Orange One's orders? All roight now, what did you do with the real O'Rielly?
Re:Tomorrow's News (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
In what world is "I don’t think we as the FCC have the authority to do this" == talking shit about Trump?
The Wacky World of Donald Trump.
Re:Tomorrow's News (Score:4, Insightful)
The mango Mussolini has such a thin skin that he perceives everything as a slight. One day Merkel says she would prefer to wait with the G7 meeting until it is safe to travel, the next day Trump announces that he will move troops from Germany to Poland.
Re:Tomorrow's News (Score:5, Informative)
In my opinion, talking shit about your boss in public is grounds for being fired.
Perhaps, but Trump is not his boss. The FCC is an independent agency, outside of the executive branch of the federal government. It's more an arm of Congress, really.
Re: (Score:2)
He's not talking shit, he's telling the truth that he doesn't believe he has the authority to make the changes. But to Trump that is treason, sort of like the old feudal lords who would behead whoever didn't bow low enough.
They don't (Score:4, Interesting)
I keep saying this, but S230 is the bedrock of the Internet (along with NN). We threaten it at our peril. Ask ask yourself who's pushing to repeal & reform S230 & follow the money. You won't find real free speech advocates there, you'll find the exact opposite.
Re: (Score:3)
People who directly cause damage through tortious speech are still liable under section 230. So I guess you were simply ignorant of what it does, and now you have no desire to repeal it after all.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't really help when anonymous people post tortious speech on a "platform" that doesn't identify who they are.
If records are kept, it's possible to work out who it was. Keeping or repealing 230 has nothing to do with anonymous speech, which is constitutionally protected and therefore cannot be banned.
And if it's repealed, the sites that keep their fora up will simply stop moderating at all, meaning that you'll still have anonymous people posting tortious speech, as seen on 8chan and other crapholes.
Your solution is bad and doesn't actually address the problem you've identified. Care to try again?
Re: (Score:2)
230 does one thing, and one thing only. It allows (social media) publishers to do some moderation without becoming legally liable for *everything* that gets expressed on their site.
Without it, you have two options:
1) allow every kiddy-diddler, nazi, spammer, and troll to post unimpeded on your site for all to see (act as a common carrier)
2) become completely legally liable for *everything* that anyone posts on your site (act as a publisher)
Which of those situations do you see being an improvement for free
Re: (Score:2)
How long do you think we would last without any trace of moderation or blocking?
The same way we did on usenet or irc - users self moderate and the platform stays neutral - instead of modern social media hiearchies where the platforms call the shots. Since neutral platforms don't editorialize, but only integrate tools for users themselves to do that, they stay neutral. I for one am very in favor of the executive order because it:
* Gives back power to end users to self-moderate by forcing platforms to be neutral.
* Breaks up the practices of predatory editorializing, notably clickbai
Re: (Score:2)
users self moderate
And then the users become collectively liable for the content, even of others, if they don't moderate it away. Or if there are specific moderators they become liable for potentially massive lawsuits if they don't get it right. I think finding volunteers, should people understand that, would be difficult.
The same way we did on usenet or irc
The internet then was small enough that no one much cared what was being posted. Those days are long gone and so are not relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not the only one. Thanks sooo much for dragging up those memories.
But yeah, that's the purpose of 230. Every board in country would become unusable as soon as the first malcontent decided to set a few bots to start spamming it with trash. Block even just the worst offenders, and you become legally liable for every single post anyone else makes.
Unclear even here (Score:2)
The statute says "good faith", which isn't defined. Common practice for the last ~100 years is for executive agencies to clarify ambiguities like this through the regulatory process. There are two mechanisms for Congress to intervene if they think the executive got it wrong.
I have strong leanings towards libertarian (without paying much attention to people who call themselves "Libertarian"). In my opinion, about 90% of the executive branch is unconstitutional, including the way Congress has deferred de f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The statute says "good faith", which isn't defined.
No, the statute says "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material...."
That is, the action must have been taken in good faith. If a restriction on access or availability is easily circumvented but the entity taking the action honestly thought that it would work, that qualifies.
The question as to whether to restrict access or availability is subjective. This is functiona
Re: (Score:2)
Would you make the same argument if it was the phone company - which is private property - deciding what conversations you can have on their network?
How about if your internet service provider - which is private property - was deciding who you could talk to?
How about if your power company - which is private property - was deciding which people are deserving of electrical service?
How about if a hotel - which is private property - decided that it only serves Democrats?
How about if a bank - which is private pr
Re: (Score:2)
Phone and power company no -- they're utilities that are heavily regulated, primarily due to their fundamental necessity and status as natural monopolies (i.e. the lack of competitive telephone and power infrastructure). If these sectors were redesigned so that there were lots more competition for the same customers (e.g. decouple power generation from transmission) then possibly yes, depending on just who wanted to be picky about their customers.
ISP no, because they should also be a utility (at least with
Re: (Score:2)
Would you make the same argument if it was the phone company - which is private property - deciding what conversations you can have on their network?
No, but then it's not equivalent, as phone calls are point-to-point communications. It's like private messages on social media: you can have conversations via private message you can't have posting publicly. There are rules on what is reasonable via private message, but those also apply to the phone system too, such as conspiring to plan murders, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The statute says "good faith", which isn't defined.
Good faith is a legal term. It has a definition in legal matters.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... [cornell.edu]
Deep state alert! Deep state alert! (Score:5, Funny)
Any government official who tries to follow the law rather than Trump's decrees is clearly an agent of the deep state and must be axed forthwith (figurative axing is acceptable, literal axing strongly preferred).
Trump's fucking up the country (Score:3)
The doubt is reasonably founded (Score:2)
I recently saw a short lecture on section 230, and what occured to me after I saw it in the context of what Trump is evidently wanting to do is that section 230 apparently *explicitly* permits a private provider of a service which enjoys that protection to engage in, at its discretion, some level of moderation of its content for purposes of things like decency, legality, preventing defamation, and terms of service adherence *without* incurring any liability for the content that others had provided using it
Re: (Score:3)
You're correct. The state of the law before Section 230, thanks to court rulings, was that if a service provider did any moderation then it was presumed to have knowledge of everything posted (because it was scanning it for moderation purposes) and therefore could be held liable for anything posted because it knowingly permitted it to be posted. That left service providers in a bind: since they couldn't possibly catch everything, and even if they did there were still going to be edge cases where someone mig
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say that there is a court case in the Supreme Court and the President wants the verdict to go a certain way. Suppose he drafts and executive order commanding the justices to vote the way he prefers. Would it be funny for them to question the legality of such an order?
That example makes it sound obvious, but it's the same situation. The FCC is not controlled by the President and if he asks (or demands) them to do something they are under no obligation to do so—and if he asks them to do something