- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
DOJ Goes After Google's Comment Section: Trump Admin To Propose Section 230 Rollback
Posted on 6/17/20 at 10:04 am
Posted on 6/17/20 at 10:04 am
LINK
A good start but to me Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facesuck need to broken up. They are essentially an extension of the democratic party and giving them free services which is actually in violation of the spirit of campaign laws.
Break them up.
quote:
The DoJ just escalated its burgeoning feud with Silicon Valley by introducing a new legislative plan meant to make certain changes proposed in a Trump executive order signed late last month permanent - including a measure to strip tech giants of "liability shields" for activity and speech that happens on their platforms.
In effect, the DoJ proposal would rollback protections centered in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, something that's gaining bipartisan support (albeit for vastly different reasons).
The proposal calls for the rolling back of legal protections that online platforms have enjoyed for more than 20 years to try and make tech companies more responsible in how they police their content, CNET reports. The proposed reforms, to be announced later on Wednesday, are designed to require social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook or YouTube (owned by Google parent Alphabet) to be more active in policing sites for illicit or harmful content, while also requiring them to be more consistent in decisions to remove content they find objectionable.
If adopted by Congress and passed, the bill would effectively make some of the changes outlined in an executive order signed by Trump late last month the law of the land: It would rollback protections for these digital 'platforms' that engage in active political censorship of users on said platforms.Because of this, it represents a serious escalation of the Trump Administration's fight against Big Tech, which President Trump has long criticized for discriminating against conservatives and their ideas.
The new framework might gain more traction on capital hill, particularly after the events of yesterday, when a journalist-activist employed by NBC News published a story claiming that the "far-right" websites Zero Hedge and the Federalist (two sites that have both been described as about as conservative as the Drudge Report) were recently demonetized by Google. Shortly after, Google clarified that it was working with the two publishers to rein in hate speech in comment sections.
Furthermore, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at GW who often writes on free speech issues, criticized an NBC News report on the "de-monetization" (later denied by Google) of Zero Hedge and the Federalist) and argued that Google's actions support the DOJ legislative proposal and the Trump Administration's incipient anti-trust effort.
As we discussed earlier in regards to Twitter, Google seems to be making the case for not only pushing forward with anti-trust inquiries but stripping it and other companies of immunity protections. Indeed, the Justice Department just announced that it is moving forward with proposals to strip away protections. Google and other companies were given protections under Section 320 because it has claimed to being a neutral supplier of virtual space for people to speak with one another. It is now effectively shutting down sites because they allow others to comment freely on their sites. This biased targeting of sites has led to congressional objections and renewed threats to amend the federal law. Indeed, Google is undermining the support with some of us who viewed protections are fostering free speech values. It is now using its role to stifle and regulate speech, the very antithesis of not just free speech but the federal protections.
The White House has made it abundantly clear that it won't tolerate social media platforms continuing to censor and de-monetize conservative speech while ignoring similar behavior by radical leftists. If these platforms want to continue to 'curate' the information and speech found therein, then they should be treated more like a publisher than a platform.
A good start but to me Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facesuck need to broken up. They are essentially an extension of the democratic party and giving them free services which is actually in violation of the spirit of campaign laws.
Break them up.
This post was edited on 6/17/20 at 10:05 am
7
Posted on 6/17/20 at 10:15 am to GeauxFightingTigers1
These tech companies have nothing to lose at this point by going all-in against Trump. If Biden wins, they win, the risk is worth the reward to them at this point.
Posted on 6/17/20 at 10:15 am to GeauxFightingTigers1
Wake me up when Trump actually follows through on it
Posted on 6/17/20 at 10:19 am to GeauxFightingTigers1
Way past time to do this. BUT, too many lawmakers own stock in these companies. Is this really going to get through the US House with hack Nancy in charge? I think she owns over a million in FaceCrook stock. This article discusses...
Congress and Big Tech stock ownership
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who represents a San Francisco district that neighbors tech giants, reported owning up to $25.5 million in Apple stocks. Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, runs a venture capital firm that has helped make the Democratic leader one of the wealthiest members of Congress. He made a number of trades involving tech companies during the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic, including buying shares of Slack Technologies stock.
Microsoft is the second-most invested company. Sixty-five lawmakers owned stocks in the tech giant. Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), a former Microsoft executive, owned up to $10 million in company stock. Another former Microsoft employee, Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), held up to $5.2 million in Microsoft stock.
Tech companies are among the most popular assets for lawmakers, with 42 members invested in Google, 37 in Amazon and 34 in Facebook as of the most recent filings. Several ultra-wealthy members of Congress reported significant holdings in all five major tech companies, including Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), a former banker, and Rep. Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.), a lottery winner."
"Other Democrats reported seven-figure investments in big tech last year. Freshman Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) reported holding up to $5 million in Facebook stock."
Congress and Big Tech stock ownership
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who represents a San Francisco district that neighbors tech giants, reported owning up to $25.5 million in Apple stocks. Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, runs a venture capital firm that has helped make the Democratic leader one of the wealthiest members of Congress. He made a number of trades involving tech companies during the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic, including buying shares of Slack Technologies stock.
Microsoft is the second-most invested company. Sixty-five lawmakers owned stocks in the tech giant. Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), a former Microsoft executive, owned up to $10 million in company stock. Another former Microsoft employee, Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), held up to $5.2 million in Microsoft stock.
Tech companies are among the most popular assets for lawmakers, with 42 members invested in Google, 37 in Amazon and 34 in Facebook as of the most recent filings. Several ultra-wealthy members of Congress reported significant holdings in all five major tech companies, including Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), a former banker, and Rep. Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.), a lottery winner."
"Other Democrats reported seven-figure investments in big tech last year. Freshman Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) reported holding up to $5 million in Facebook stock."
This post was edited on 6/17/20 at 10:21 am
Posted on 6/17/20 at 10:21 am to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
If adopted by Congress and passed
ok so its never gonna happen, so why bother even mentioning it
if they want to do this it can only be done after the election when dimrats no longer have any control or ability to obstruct
Posted on 6/17/20 at 10:22 am to GeauxFightingTigers1
Oh boy
Posted on 6/17/20 at 10:23 am to BobLouder
And here is an article about not allowing members own stock. Don't see that ever happening ...
Congress and Stock Ownership
Congress and Stock Ownership
Posted on 6/17/20 at 10:29 am to GeauxFightingTigers1
Railroads in their heyday tried to bar companies and products that competed with their affiliated companies and products from shipping on their lines.
It resulted in the railroads forced to be common carriers stripped of their ability to rig the market.
It resulted in the railroads forced to be common carriers stripped of their ability to rig the market.
Posted on 6/17/20 at 10:35 am to GeauxFightingTigers1
And don't think Big Tech is going to sit back and just watch it happen ...
Big Tech Lobbying
Amazon, Facebook and Google turn to deep network of political allies to battle back antitrust probes
The tech giants have funded a bevy of political groups, including those producing positive polling, and engaged in other fingerprint-free tactics designed to deter regulators
Big Tech Lobbying
Amazon, Facebook and Google turn to deep network of political allies to battle back antitrust probes
The tech giants have funded a bevy of political groups, including those producing positive polling, and engaged in other fingerprint-free tactics designed to deter regulators
This post was edited on 6/17/20 at 10:37 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News