Web

DOJ narrows Section 230 reform proposals for platforms to curb censorship & illicit content

Today, the Department of Justice narrows down its Section 230 reform proposals to focus on holding online platforms accountable in promoting open discourse while addressing illicit content.

“We therefore urge Congress to make these necessary reforms to Section 230 and begin to hold online platforms accountable both when they unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online” — US Attorney General William Barr

On June 17, the DOJ proposed four proposals to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996:

  • Promoting Open Discourse and Greater Transparency
  • Incentivizing Online Platforms to Address Illicit Content
  • Clarifying Federal Government Enforcement Capabilities to Address Unlawful Content
  • Promoting Competition

Today, the Justice Department, on behalf of the administration, narrowed those four reform proposals down to two while sending draft legislation to Congress:

  • Promoting Transparency and Open Discourse
  • Addressing Illicit Activity Online

“Ensuring that the internet is a safe, but also vibrant, open and competitive environment is vitally important to America,” said US Attorney General William Barr, in a public statement.

“We therefore urge Congress to make these necessary reforms to Section 230 and begin to hold online platforms accountable both when they unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate criminal activity online,” he added.

By promoting transparency and open discourse, the DOJ is looking to hold platforms accountable when they censor free speech.

According to the DOJ, “The current interpretations of Section 230 have enabled online platforms to hide behind the immunity to censor lawful speech in bad faith and is inconsistent with their own terms of service.”

The DOJ would like to revise and clarify the existing language of Section 230 and replace “vague terms that may be used to shield arbitrary content moderation decisions with more concrete language that gives greater guidance to platforms, users, and courts.”

“The current interpretations of Section 230 have enabled online platforms to hide behind the immunity to censor lawful speech in bad faith and is inconsistent with their own terms of service” — US Department of Justice

On addressing illegal activity online, the DOJ’s reform proposal is “aimed at incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online, while preserving the core of Section 230’s immunity for defamation claims.”

According to the DOJ, “Section 230 immunity is meant to incentivize and protect online Good Samaritans.  Platforms that purposely solicit and facilitate harmful criminal activity — in effect, online Bad Samaritans — should not receive the benefit of this immunity.  Nor should a platform receive blanket immunity for continuing to host known criminal content on its services, despite repeated pleas from victims to take action.”

The initial four reform proposals to Section 230 came a day after Google was accused of threatening to demonetize media outlets Zero Hedge and The Federalist, allegedly at the behest of NBC, for not taking steps to remove inappropriate comments submitted by outside parties.

Last week, Google’s President of Global Partnerships and Corporate Development Don Harrison, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust.

“In the case of The FederalistThe Federalist had comment boards that had commentary in it, some of which our systems made clear was racist commentary, and we’ve been clear in our policies that our ads can’t show up next to that kind of commentary,” Harrison testified.

“We did try to work with The Federalist, and there are a bunch of options available to a company in this situation,” he added.

According to Harrison, The Federalist was targeted only because of its readers’ comments — not anything The Federalist produced or published — and that the alternatives were to either ban comments altogether, moderate/censor them, or create a click-through to the comments section.

Tim Hinchliffe

The Sociable editor Tim Hinchliffe covers tech and society, with perspectives on public and private policies proposed by governments, unelected globalists, think tanks, big tech companies, defense departments, and intelligence agencies. Previously, Tim was a reporter for the Ghanaian Chronicle in West Africa and an editor at Colombia Reports in South America. These days, he is only responsible for articles he writes and publishes in his own name. tim@sociable.co

View Comments

Recent Posts

GAN, Tec de Monterrey partnership highlights cross-border startup ecosystem building in Latin America amid trade dispute

Despite recent tensions between the United States government and Latin American countries over migration and…

3 days ago

This founder started out with US $5K to his name. Now, he owns a multi-million-dollar global business

Meet Nitin Seth, the Co-Founder and CEO of Screen Magic (SMS Magic), a messaging leader…

4 days ago

Building smarter: AI, the ultimate tool transforming an old-age industry

In this Brains Byte Back, we sit down with Hari Vasudevan, founder and CEO of…

4 days ago

When AI Goes Rogue: 8 Lessons from Implementing LLMs in the Healthcare Industry that Could Save the Future

By Santosh Shevade, Principal Data Consultant at Gramener – A Straive company All pharmaceutical companies…

5 days ago

Digital Public Infrastructure will enable public, private entities to control your access to essential goods, services & mobility

Digital Public Infrastructure is a top-down agenda coming from unelected globalists, bureaucrats, and their partners…

2 weeks ago

Open Source Claims to Be a Meritocracy—So Why Are Companies Buying Their Way In?

Imagine that you are a maintainer of a widely used open source project relied upon…

2 weeks ago