RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: GOP Sen. Josh Hawley takes aim at Big Tech's legal protection with - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

GOP Sen. Josh Hawley takes aim at Big Tech's legal protection with Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,155
  • Joined: 02-October 03

  Posted 20 June 2019 - 03:15 AM

GOP Sen. Josh Hawley takes aim at Big Tech's legal protection with new bill

James Rogers
Fox News
6/19/19

EXCERPT:

Sen. Josh Hawley has announced legislation that would remove tech titans’ protection from liability for third-party content on their platforms.

The Missouri senator’s bill specifically targets Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The Act, which became law in 1996, provides key legal protection to big tech. Section 230 states that “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.”

Hawley, however, says that the Communications Decency Act was passed when the Internet was still in its infancy, whereas big tech firms are now among the world’s most powerful companies. His legislation, the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, would remove the protection that big tech receives under Section 230 unless the firms submit to an external audit that proves their algorithms and content moderation are politically neutral.

(Full Story)
0

#2 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,805
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 20 June 2019 - 09:30 AM

He wants big tech companies to be subject more lawsuits, unless they bend to his guidelines and unelected members of the FTC to certify content is unbiased..
So much for small government.
0

#3 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 35,759
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 20 June 2019 - 09:48 AM

View PostLadybird, on 20 June 2019 - 09:30 AM, said:

So much for small government.


That's rich. A friggin' democrat whining about large government.



http://meetingking.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/sledgehammer.jpghttps://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/toy-bucket-sand-14883650.jpg

0

#4 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,278
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 20 June 2019 - 02:51 PM

View PostMTP Reggie, on 20 June 2019 - 09:48 AM, said:

That's rich. A friggin' democrat whining about large government.



http://meetingking.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/sledgehammer.jpghttps://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/toy-bucket-sand-14883650.jpg


:yes:

View PostLadybird, on 20 June 2019 - 09:30 AM, said:

He wants big tech companies to be subject more lawsuits, unless they bend to his guidelines and unelected members of the FTC to certify content is unbiased..
So much for small government.


:rolleyes:
0

#5 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,832
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 20 June 2019 - 03:26 PM

View PostLadybird, on 20 June 2019 - 09:30 AM, said:

He wants big tech companies to be subject more lawsuits, unless they bend to his guidelines and unelected members of the FTC to certify content is unbiased..
So much for small government.

Do you have this opinion because you want Facebook and Twitter and Google etc etc to be able to not be responsible for, e.g. interfering in elections? Could it be that you think they’ll help democrats, and thus you don’t want to regulate them in any way? (But regulating FoxNews OTOH is fine.)
0

#6 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,805
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 21 June 2019 - 09:04 AM

View Postzurg, on 20 June 2019 - 03:26 PM, said:

Do you have this opinion because you want Facebook and Twitter and Google etc etc to be able to not be responsible for, e.g. interfering in elections? Could it be that you think they’ll help democrats, and thus you don’t want to regulate them in any way? (But regulating FoxNews OTOH is fine.)

Who said anything about regulating Fox News?
0

#7 User is offline   Coach 

  • Coach
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 14,787
  • Joined: 17-November 03

Posted 22 June 2019 - 02:55 PM

View PostLadybird, on 21 June 2019 - 09:04 AM, said:

Who said anything about regulating Fox News?



All networks and news periodicals are subject to libel litigation. The techies get special treatment and they have seriously abused it. They censor, blacklist and twist information. They are right out of Brave New World.
0

#8 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,805
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 23 June 2019 - 01:06 PM

View PostCoach, on 22 June 2019 - 02:55 PM, said:

All networks and news periodicals are subject to libel litigation. The techies get special treatment and they have seriously abused it. They censor, blacklist and twist information. They are right out of Brave New World.

So the answer is more censorship?
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users