[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 11 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]

Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks Make sure to check your spam box!

File: image.jpg (83 KB, 900x688)
83 KB

In a new interview with Recode, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made some notable comments on what by all accounts is the most important law underpinning the modern internet as we know it.

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is as short as it is potent — and it’s worth getting familiar with. It states “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.”

When asked about Section 230, Pelosi referred to the law as a “gift” to tech companies that have leaned heavily on the law to grow their business. That provision, providing tech platforms legal cover for content created by their users, is what allowed services like Facebook, YouTube and many others to swell into the massive companies they are today.

"It is a gift to them and I don’t think that they are treating it with the respect that they should, and so I think that that could be a question mark and in jeopardy… I do think that for the privilege of 230, there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it. And it is not out of the question that that could be removed."


It's the end of the fucking internet. Europe has gone off the deep end, Trump leads an army of sycophants who think that moderation should be made illegal, and now the Democrats are planning to siege the internet from the left. What a time to be alive.
There's no taking back technological progress. An alternative will be created.

It may be shitty at first, rely on IoT hacks to propagate, but it will eventually solidify. There's no doubt about this.
While it's obvious Pelosi's just threatening onerous regulation if the tech sector doesn't censor sufficiently proactively for her liking, Facebook et al shouldn't have blanket indemnification from the content its users post.
Should 4chan and all it's moderators go to jail because people have, are, and will continue to post CP on 4chan for the indefinite future?
4chan not having preemptive indemnification against CP does not imply that the mods should go to jail. The fact that the mods act in good faith to proactively remove and report illegal content is their indemnification. Giving that unconditionally is just pandering to dot-com special interests.
Giving 230 unconditionally created the entirety of the early internet because nobody who creates some dumb fucking fansite wants criminal liability over everything every chucklefuck once posted to it. I guarantee you there's criminal libel on 4chan right now that the mods aren't removing because nobody on staff gives one fuck about it.

Giving it CONDITIONALLY on content is government compulsion of speech and a violation of the First Amendment.
I never said anything about giving it conditionally. Keep your leaps of logic in your own head please.
You criticized giving it unconditionally, so I assumed you wanted to give it conditionally, the alternative being that you simply want it abolished entirely, which is so horrifyingly awful that I didn't think that a human being could advocate it.
That is not the alternative you moron. I'm really struggling to come up with an explanation that gets through. Repealing 230 does not mean conditional indemnification. It also does not mean no indemnification at all. You're trying to anticipate arguments that aren't there.
So you propose to remove the indemnification of 230 and replace it with:

- unconditional indemnification
- conditional indemnification
- no indemnification

Which of these are you proposing? Or is there some sort of magical alternative to these?
WTF I like Nancy nao?
The current situation where nobody does anything.
Pelosi. Says Section 230 was a 'gift'. Threatens to take it back from tech companies. Is a rep from California district in and around San Francisco.

Sounds like she forgot who sent her to Congress and who might just yank her back.
'Tech companies can censor whoever they like, whenever they like but have no responsibility for anything, ever' was not a sustainable situation. You need a top tier military to hold onto that kind of power, and they haven't got one.
4chan has that power, and last time I checked 4chan didn't have any sort of any military at all.
>It is a gift to them

No, you vile verminous cunt, the government does not _give_ the American people free speech, it's an inherent natural human right guaranteed by the fucking Constitution.
Companies have free speech with or without Section 230s. It's just that the lack of 230 makes it potentially very expensive to host other people's speech.
4chan has a large and extremely effective militia, it just so happens that its not your personal army, it fights of it's own free will and engages how, where and when it pleases.
4chan hasn't had a hacker worth shit in the last five years; Anonymous hasn't done shit lately and it moved off 4chan the better part of a decade ago anyway (because it turns out it's a really bad idea to coordinate hacks on a website that responds to subpoenas!) These days /g/ can barely figure out how to turn on a computer.

If communication companies (and the fact is that huge social media websites like Facebook and Twitter are defacto communication corporations) are held accountable for the speech of their users, then it is a blatant violation of the user's freedom of speech.

Your cell phone service provider is not responsible for your speech when using their service nor can they censor your speech, and the same should apply to Internet communication websites.
4chan is small. If it got to the size of facebook, do you really think governments would let it continue to work the way it does?
>While it's obvious Pelosi's just threatening onerous regulation if the tech sector doesn't censor sufficiently proactively for her liking,

To me that still sounds like we're fucked. Either the tech sector fucks us over thanks to govt threats or the us govt legally makes them fuck us over,

It sounds like she's mad at them for benefiting from the law as it was intended.

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.