Search

9/ 13/ 24, 11: 17 AM The New York Timeshttps:// nytimes. pressreader. com/ the- new- york- times/ 20240822 25/ 48 9/ 13/ 24, 11: 17 AM The New York Times https:// nytimes. pressreader. com/ the- new- york- times/ 20240822 28/ 48 [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses a ruling by the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that TikTok could be held liable for recommending a "blackout challenge" video, which led to the death of a 10-year-old girl, challenging the legal immunity social-media companies have under Section 230. Topics include the potential liability of social-media platforms, criticisms of Section 230's broad protections, and proposed legislative changes to limit the use of algorithms targeting children.

Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which grants legal immunity to internet platforms, is criticized for being poorly written and allowing for censorship. The authors of the article argue that moderation should be transparent, fair, consistent, and appealable, and that censorship should be prohibited. They suggest ending immunity for censorship and allowing the legal system to determine liability. However, they also emphasize the importance of upholding free speech and providing consumers with better ways to filter unwanted information. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the importance of Section 230 in protecting free speech on social media platforms. It argues that without Section 230, platforms would have to either heavily censor content, allow all content regardless of its nature, or prohibit users from posting altogether. The article emphasizes that blaming Big Tech for online harms is misguided, as many of these issues are social rather than technical. It suggests that instead of repealing Section 230, stronger privacy protections should be implemented to promote online safety. The article also warns that eliminating Section 230 could stifle innovation and disadvantage smaller tech companies. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the potential repeal of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which has governed the legal rules for millions of websites. The authors, who were involved in introducing the legislation, argue that repealing Section 230 without a replacement plan would be reckless. They explain that Section 230 was created to address the unique nature of the internet and to encourage content moderation. They warn that reverting to the pre-Section 230 status quo would have significant consequences, potentially stifling online platforms and limiting consumer freedom. The authors criticize the current proposal to sunset Section 230 without a clear plan for its replacement, calling it a reckless ploy. [Extracted from the article]

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in 1996, is now being criticized for allowing Big Tech companies to evade responsibility for harmful content on their platforms. Lawmakers argue that these companies are profiting from children and failing to protect them from predators, drug dealers, and cyberbullies. They also claim that Section 230 gives tech firms unlimited immunity from legal consequences, allowing them to operate without transparency or accountability. In response, bipartisan draft legislation has been proposed to sunset Section 230 and require Big Tech to work with Congress to create a new legal framework that promotes free speech and innovation while ensuring safety and accountability. The proposal aims to hold social media companies accountable for failing to protect children and level the playing field between Big Tech and other industries. Critics argue that reforming Section 230 will not harm free speech, as the First Amendment provides the basis for free speech protections in the US. The proposed changes seek to empower those who have been exploited on social media platforms and create a solution that balances accountability, innovation, and free speech in the digital age. [Extracted from the article]

The article reports on the two rulings issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in May 2023, favoring technology companies like Google on the issue of liability for content posted by their users. In the Google case, the court claimed that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects said firms from liability. Also cited is the Twitter case in which the court claimed that the law allowing suits for aiding terrorism does not apply to ordinary activities of social media firms.

The article focuses on the results of the first poll of the 2024 campaign, conducted by The New York Times and Siena College, which shows that former President Trump is dominating the Republican presidential nominee race, surpassing Governor DeSantis and other rivals in nearly every category.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to avoid addressing the controversial liability shield known as Section 230, leaving it intact and deferring the issue back to Congress, which creates a legislative stalemate regarding reforming the provision.

The article discusses that the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of Gonzalez v. Google, which focuses on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and provides protection from liability to tech platforms for most content contributed by third parties.

The article explains the need to revisit Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act passed in 1996. The law has been recognized for helping Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other internet companies grow. There are concerns that the section has extended to fringe websites hosting hate speech, anti-Semitic content and racist tropes. The law does not provide legal protection to criminal acts such as child pornography and intellectual property violations.

The article reports that the Department of Justice has released a proposal, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for Congress to revise the 1996 law that gives technological companies a legal liability protection for content posted by third parties.