Sen J Hawley introduces’Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act

Posted by Dobrien 5 years, 10 months ago to Legislation
116 comments | Share | Flag

With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” said Senator Hawley. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.

“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with. Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public. This legislation simply states that if the tech giants want to keep their government-granted immunity, they must bring transparency and accountability to their editorial processes and prove that they don’t discriminate.”

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "When evil men lose in the marketplace of ideas, they then turn to force."
    This is a perfect description of today's conservatives, as they turn to government in order to attack the rights of tech companies, because they've lost the battle of ideas.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The error in your argument is that P has paid the regressives to get regulators to protect P, the owner of such a forum. When P can use a government to effectively eliminate its competition, one does not have the proper "freedom to earn that implementation by one's own effort" that Ayn Rand discusses.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are right, but not in the way that you think. The leaders in Google and other successful technology companies share Toohey's and Ferris' behaviors, but have the financial power of Midas Mulligan and are therefore even more dangerous to us than even Toohey or Ferris.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Never said it would. But before 20+ years I suspect that their current ploy will burn out and fail spectacularly. But since that also wasn’t real socialism, the intellectuals will come up with some new ploy plotting to get it right.

    Also, this was about AOC.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The internet remains unusually free, not just "in theory". The trends in the culture threatening it are not solved by ignoring the intellectual causes and lashing out with populist demands for more government controls and harassment of industry while smearing it as "censorship".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There is no end in sight for the trend towards increasing collectivism and statism and no reason to think it will be over in any sense in 20 years. Pelosi is the least of it; she's simply riding a wave.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Toohey and Ferris were philosophical archetypes who, despite the problems, are not equivalent to the leaders in Google and other very successful technology companies. Branding Google as Ellsworth Toohey precludes understanding the problem and does not justify a new layer of government control over private businesses.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your assertion is false. More conspiracy speculation.

    "Voting" is intended to be part of the forum; rote emotional 'downvoting' of people as a means of personalized attack is not. This is supposed to be a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism, with rational discussion, not emotional populist crusades contradicting it.

    There are no "narcissistic liberals" here. That is personal name-calling in a strawman false alternative.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They delete videos from producers , they demonitize without explaination , they takedown sites. Using AI algorithms finding key words that they consider hate speech examples would be anything that has to do with human trafficking, pizzagate or sex slavery( NXIVM ) oh yeah all were found guilty in the sex slavery trial. Not news worthy in the MSM and censored by google (you know do good... motto).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 0
    Posted by Dobrien 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The minute you and Peter Smith hit this post you both down voted all comments .
    CAN YOU SAY PROJECTION. It is a trait of the narcissistic liberals.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by exceller 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "If a company limits your ability to speak your mind you may choose a different company to handle your comments or opinions."

    In theory, yes.

    However, given the extremely biased position of the MSM, and the largest social networks such as FB, Google, etc., plus the brainwashing on campuses, plus the ever radicalized PC culture pervading everything in daily life, that statement lost validity.

    Even traditionally conservative outlets such as FOX and WSJ are so much to the left that was unimaginable two decades ago.

    Besides, the government relies on laws that enable it to censor. Laws that are very closely resemble the agenda of the left.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by exceller 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And to think that'll be sheeple voting for her...

    That's the worst aspect of it.

    Just as they were voting for Hussein...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So? In 20 or more years this globalist postmodern based quest for unreasoning tribalism should be over.

    Imagine how she would be looked at then?
    She’d be like a little child in a candy factory full of candy she’s never seen before. She’d be herself.
    :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have no problem someone freezing her for say 20 or more years so she’ll be eligible.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think those three know this. That's why AOC airily hinted that she might challenge the minimum age for the Presidency.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by exceller 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The three are the most radical ones, but I would not call them leaders.

    At least not in the visible sense. The party would never admit that b/c it would be suicidal.

    Deep down, they take cues from these three, and justify their radicalism by smokescreening like Pelosi tried with Omar (thinking that people were fool enough to buy her "Omar does not understand English" crap).

    I think the Dem leadership still has its existential instinct to defeat these three if it comes to their own positions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I see what you mean. Though it's difficult to put a public face to either one. I sometimes think Nancy Pelosi would be EMT as a woman.

    Though the real leaders of the Democratic Party today are three freshwomen! AOC, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar. The Triumfeminae. For if they were guys, I'd call them Trium-virs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by exceller 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "The only adversary worthy of the name in Atlas Shrugged was Floyd Ferris. And the adversary definitely worthy of the name in The Fountainhead was Ellsworth Monckton Toohey. Either man would be right at home in the higher echelons of Google, Facebook, Twitter, or Spotify."

    Definitely.

    Both characters were defined to the most basic details by AR.

    Knowing it makes you shudder as you look at Dem "leadership".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Interfering" with what others do with your property is not censorship. Censorship can only by imposed by force, i.e., in this context government.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And yet we must defend the principles that also apply to Google, etc. even while they lack an understanding of their own rights as they undermine them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You can't buy truth and your snotty comments don't help. No one here is "giving a pass" to Google, which you would know if you read and comprehended what I and others have written about them in the posts you rotely 'downvote' in your emotional crusade for populist statism. You are no "producer" in your posts and paying for a membership in lieu of valuable content contribution gives you no intellectual privilege. Obnoxious paid members violating the guidelines here in the past have been removed, but not often enough. It's a matter of what the owners care to tolerate, which is not "censorship".
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo