九九视频精品全部免费播放-九九视频免费精品视频-九九视频在线观看视频6-九九视频这-九九线精品视频在线观看视频-九九影院

Joe Biden2 ng?i sao phim khiêu damangry at Facebook — and wants to fundamentally change the internet because of it.

In an interview with the New York Timeseditorial board published Friday, presidential candidate Joe Biden went off on Facebook and said he wants to revoke section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

"Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one," Biden said. "For Zuckerberg and other platforms."

Section 230 shields internet platforms and publishers from liability for what users write on their platforms. For example, a social media company can't be sued for what a user posts, or a blogger isn't liable for what readers write in the comments section. A lesser-known component of the law is that it also allows internet companies to moderate their platforms as they see fit.

The law dates back to 1996, and some have called for its reexamination in light of how the internet has changed in the last 25 years. However, online civil liberty experts also say it is crucial for protecting freedom of speech online.

"Gutting CDA 230 won't fix any of the problems caused by centralized Big Tech platforms," Evan Greer, an internet freedoms expert and advocate with Fight for the Future, told Mashable. "It will just open the floodgates for widespread internet censorship, while stripping existing platforms of their ability to moderate content responsibly."

Biden appears to have his sights set on Section 230 because of an October 2018 scuffle with Facebook. The Biden campaign wrote a letter to Facebook asking it to remove an ad, posted by an independent Political Action Committee (PAC), claiming that Biden was blackmailing a Ukrainian official to keep them from prosecuting his son, Hunter Biden. Facebook declined to remove the ad, answering that it will not monitor political ads based on whether the information they present is true or false.

Biden's takeaway from this experience appears to be that Section 230 needs work, specifically as it applies to Facebook: in November, he said that the company should be exempt from its protections.

"I’ve never been a big Zuckerberg fan," Biden said. "I think he’s a real problem."

He took that sentiment a step further by advocating that the law be revoked. Mashable has reached out to the Biden campaign to see if his comments on Section 230 constitute an official campaign position, and will update this when we hear back.

So is revoking 230 such a terrible idea? With all the harm wrought by false speech on Facebook, it seems a reasonable argument that they bear legal responsibility.

However, the internet saw the consequences of kneecapping 230 firsthand with the introduction of exemptions to the law in 2018 — and it wasn't pretty.

Two provisions called FOSTA and SESTA were nominally introduced to curb online sex trafficking by making internet companies liable for hosting prostitution ads on their websites. While the intention seemed noble (although some said it was actually a conservative anti-sex work Trojan horse), its effects were immediately chilling.

Some websites, notably including Tumblr, had long been valued, safe spaces for sex workers and frank talk about sexuality. But in the wake of the changes, rather than host any explicit content that could leave them liable, websites like Tumblr banned explicit content and gutted once-thriving sex-positive communities.

Instead of messing with Section 230, Greer believes in a finer approach that curtails the power of consolidated tech giants while also protecting freedom of speech. Simplistic talking points shouldn't jeopardize that, Greer said.

"There's nothing more dangerous for democracy than when politicians who don't understand how the Internet works turn complex policy debates into political footballs."