| Hi all, it's Eric.The conservative writer David French is an outcast. Republicans turned on him for being a never-Trumper. Democrats won't claim him either. So, it makes sense that he's charting his own path when it comes to regulating big technology companies. Recently a bipartisan consensus of sorts has emerged, with a broad swath of people agreeing that something significant needs to be done to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which provides tech platforms with a shield from legal liability for content posted by their users. Experts in internet law say it's vital for making free debate online possible, but an increasing number of politicians think it has gone too far. The only minor hitch in the bipartisan agreement are differences of opinion about what the problems are and how they should be fixed. French outlined the differences in a panel on Thursday hosted by Yale Law School. He describes the left's objections as a concern about how social media companies amplify views they think should be seen as unacceptable. "Big Tech is empowering people I really don't like," as French put it. And indeed, right-wing voices have become very savvy about spreading their messages on social media, as Judd Legum of the newsletter Popular Information detailed Thursday in a case study of conservative wunderkind Ben Shapiro's dominance on Facebook Inc. French said Republicans are worried about making sure they're "treated the same" on websites run out of heavily Democratic-leaning Silicon Valley. But he added that Republican demands would require the government to adjudicate what constitutes equitable treatment, something conservatives should be wary of. "I'm not necessarily interested in the Trump administration's definition of good faith to be governing speech online," said French. He added that he's not so confident in the next administration's definition either. Then there's another bucket of concern which focuses on, as French puts it, "horrible things are happening to human beings, irrespective ideology." This includes issues like child sex trafficking that are less partisan. They were the driving force behind the passage in 2018 of federal legislation weakening Section 230's protections in cases of sex trafficking, in the most significant changes to the law in years. But even seemingly well-intentioned changes, argue supporters of Section 230, can have adverse results. Advocates for sex workers say the reforms only ended up making prostitution more dangerous, shutting down or scrubbing sites where solicitation took place, and diverting people toward riskier alternatives. Recent waves of misinformation and hate have kept national attention focused on online speech. French described facing vitriol himself after he wrote an article about adopting a Black child. Strangers deluged him with messages after it was published, some of which included doctored images of his wife in a gas chamber. Ultimately, French saw the experience as an argument for Section 230, because it gave Twitter the discretion to take down offensive images without worrying that they would lose their legal indemnity for weighing in on what speech was acceptable. This is where French sides with the technologists over the politicians. He thinks companies should be able to police speech on their sites as they see fit, and that government should largely stay out of it. But he's also less pessimistic than some of the law's more ardent defenders. French expressed optimism that even if Congress eroded Section 230 protections, the courts would step in to affirm companies' ability to moderate their platforms. The justices wouldn't need Section 230 to make such a ruling. They'd just rely on that other famous enabler of free speech: the First Amendment. — Eric Newcomer | 
Sitaram Panchal died of cancer at 54 New Delhi: After Inder Kumar’s sudden death, Bollywood industry got another shock this mornin...
Post a Comment