• CloudwalkingOwl@lemmy.caOPEnglish
    3·
    8 days ago

    I don’t know what specific campaign against Section 239 you are referring to, but it strikes me that it has pretty much been allowed to gut laws against libel, hate speech, truth-in-advertising, election financing, etc, much to the detriment of our society. It may be the case there could be frivolous lawsuits, but if so, I’d suggest the problem there would be the frivolous lawsuits, which could be dealt with without gutting hundreds of years of regulations that tried to curb the worst excesses of publishing. For example, there are anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws that have been passed in various jurisdictions. There is also the Fair Dealing provision in the Copyright Act. Both of which are meant to prevent frivolous lawsuits from harming people.

    I don’t think the response to wrong-headed attacks on the Internet is to support the status quo. There are an awful lot of very bad things happening on line, and governments need to reign in the worst abuses. But it has to be done by people who know enough to preserve what is good while limiting the bad.

    • LostWon@lemmy.ca
      2·
      8 days ago

      What I’m talking about isn’t an effort to sensibly amend only the aspects of Section 230 that might be making it harder to prosecute perpetrators of harm. If that can be handled equitably, that would be great. The calls from Washington I’m talking about have been for repealing it. Like this bipartisan bill in particular, which seems to be their latest attempt.

      From Wikipedia about potential outcomes of repeal:

      Online platforms would become more cautious about censoring content if Section 230 were to be repealed, according to Harvard Law Review. Moderation may become overbearing for certain kinds of otherwise-protected speech, particularly for political or controversial subjects.[20] These outcomes could have global implications, particularly as other nations are already increasing their regulation of online speech. For example, Wikipedia relies on editors and needs anonymity to ensure free speech and reduce censorship. The Electronic Frontier Foundation says that Wikipedia could not exist without these protections.[28]

      In addition to social protections, the rule may also have economic advantages. In 2017, NERA Economic Consulting estimated that, combined, Section 230 and the DMCA contributed about 425,000 jobs to the United States’ economy that year, representing a total revenue of US$44 billion annually.[29]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230