[NA-Discuss] Section 230

[Ron da Silva]

> From: Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Section 230
> Date: March 11, 2023 at 5:10:03 PM EST
> To: Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn at gmail.com>
> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> 
> Corrected link
> https://circleid.com/posts/20230310-internet-society-ceo-and-president-testifies-in-support-of-section-230-protections-before-us-senate-subcommittee <https://circleid.com/posts/20230310-internet-society-ceo-and-president-testifies-in-support-of-section-230-protections-before-us-senate-subcommittee>
> A rough transcript of the session is available.
> https://share.descript.com/view/XCk96l3zNae <https://share.descript.com/view/XCk96l3zNae>
> Subjectively, Prof Franks, who had been savaged at SOTN, was able to bask in warm bipartisan approval from the subcommittee, similarly the other two witnesses, while Andrew was regarded as little more than a shill for the tech giants. Not too helpful.
> Sen. Blumenthal "Reform is coming!"
> j


Thanks Joly & Glenn for sharing.. The nuance of course here is, section 230 was good for its intended purpose when originally drafted.. but arguments are being made that it needs to be updated.. I believe the argument is that newer social network platforms that are influencing / curating content represent something section 230 didn’t originally address.  (Perhaps useful to go back and read how AOL was viewed in that context back when 230 was originally drafted.)  That is a more challenging policy issue vs. just tossing out 230 wholesale or keeping it unabridged going forward.  Reform does seem necessary.. but it appears unclear what that reform would look like to make it current / more relevant for today.

-ron

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/attachments/20230315/1874b124/attachment.html>