Doing Nothing While Grandstanding on Section 230
If Congress were serious about this... those testifying wouldn't be given the opportunity to offer the platitudes they are... knowing that they're not under oath... and knowing they're not going to be held accountable, or even asked ANY truly difficult questions... the answers to which might land them in jail:
Section 230 made it possible for every major internet service to be built and ensured important values like free expression and openness were part of how platforms operate. Changing it is a significant decision. However, I believe Congress should update the law to make sure it's working as intended.
Note, closely, the use of the past tense... "made it possible" and "were part of"... because 230 is dead... killed by the courts, at the behest of the tech giants who have been waging lawfare against it. Changing it again "is a significant decision"... just as the effort they made in changing it... while killing it... was and is significant. We must restore 230 to its original intent and function.
Section 230 is not working as Congress intended... because the tech giants spent billions on lawfare targeting it, using judges in friendly jurisdictions, so that the mass emission of legislation from the bench turns the clear language of Section 230 on its head, as the precedent in "case law" from the courts reads the law to say the opposite of what it does say, the exact opposite of what Congress intended. In result, they've carved out an exemption from liability... independent of the conditions the law required (no editorial influence over opinion) in order to win the exemption.
The law does not need to be changed. The courts need to be corrected. The SCOTUS needs to review Section 230 in its entirety and correct lower courts error in tolerating an assault on the clear meaning of the law... generating false complexity while "incrementally" changing the law to mean the opposite of what it says and intends.
But the tech giants are not done. They want the bought and paid for Congress, not the courts, to "fix it" by giving them even MORE. Note their language:
"We support the ideas around transparency and industry collaboration that are being discussed"... They want Congress to grant them benefits in new waivers that will work to institutionalize the monopoly they have carved out...
And they want to do that in a way that will transfer their usurpation of power, enabled through the deliberate corruption of the meaning of Section 230, to legitimize regulation of speech... in a way that empowers government regulation of free speech: "we don't think tech companies should be making so many decisions about these important issues alone. I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators"
Dorsey: "undermining Section 230 (Ed. as it is now corruptly interpreted by the courts) will result in far more removal of online speech..." and will... "impose severe limitations on our collective ability to address harmful content."
Say, Jack... what "collective ability" is that which you are addressing... and wish to avoid being disrupted... while advocating "a pass" legalizing and formalizing a collective ability ? Because, the present tense used there.... makes it sound like there is an active and ongoing conspiracy intending to knowingly corrupt Section 230... that is already operating to conduct "influence operations" in clear violation of the plain language of Section 230... and the laws against conspiracy... even intending to alter the outcome of elections ?
The tech/media "industry group" appear they are hoping ... almost expecting... that the "solution" to the problems they've created... will be for Congress to grant them new immunity from prior wrongful acts... and empower them in cooperatively implementing monopoly control over something akin to social credit scores, while permanently blessing and empowering them <an "industry trade group" operating as a monopoly>... to control and operates the "government" effort in regulating speech.
Socializing control of speech... through the back door... is the opposite of what must happen. |
