Activity tagged "Section 230"

Read:
"CDA 230 bans Facebook from blocking interoperable tools (02 May 2024)".
Cory Doctorow in Pluralistic. Published .
One of those little-regarded sections of CDA 230 is part (c)(2)(b), which broadly immunizes anyone who makes a tool that helps internet users block content they don't want to see. Enter the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and their client, Ethan Zuckerman, an internet pioneer turned academic at U Mass Amherst. Knight has filed a lawsuit on Zuckerman's behalf, seeking assurance that Zuckerman (and others) can use browser automation tools to block, unfollow, and otherwise modify the feeds Facebook delivers to its users
Posted:

it is extremely funny to me that a lot of the people who want to slash or repeal Section 230 are the same people condemning NPR's Katherine Maher for her past comments they think are "anti-First Amendment"

in those comments she is actually describing the free speech protections afforded by Section 230 (although Rufo et al have ignored where she said those protections were "very important" and instead spun her comments as though she was criticizing it)

slashing or repealing 230 is the real anti-free speech issue here; certainly not Maher's comments supporting it

Listened to:
"Abolishing Section 230 Would Abolish Wikipedia" (Podcast).
Mike Masnick and Rebecca MacKinnon in Techdirt. Published .
Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee had a hearing all about Section 230, in which they didn’t even attempt to find a witness pointing out its benefits. Among the many organizations that could have provided that vital perspective is the Wikimedia Foundation (as seen in three excellent posts on Medium), and this week we’re joined by Rebecca MacKinnon, Wikimedia’s VP of Global Advocacy and long-time open internet defender, to talk about why the hearing was bad and Section 230 is very, very important.