The EFF has fundamentalist views on free speech that limit the actual freedom of expression for all sane individuals who will not put up with the harassment that predictably follows from speaking...
It’s a well-established part of internet law that individual users are responsible for their own speech online. Users and the platforms distributing users’ speech are generally not responsible for the speech of others. These principles are embodied in a key internet law, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”), which prevents online platforms from being held liable for most lawsuits relating to their users’ speech. The law applies to small blogs and websites, users who republish others’ speech, as well as the biggest platforms
The EFF has fundamentalist views on free speech that limit the actual freedom of expression for all sane individuals who will not put up with the harassment that predictably follows from speaking in many areas.
The EFF's has sane views on accepting many of the necessary limits to free speech, like protections for state secrets/ongoing diplomacy, non-protection for sexualized material of children, for fighting words and a host of other exceptions. However, the organization arbitrarily does not recognize other necessary measures for maximizing freedom of expression, like banning hate speech.
This leads the EFF to be simply wrong on many speech issues in fundamental ways because their outdated principles of speed don't account for instantaneous and unedited mass communication.
In this article, the EFF's apparent stance on several ways of regulating online platforms simply don't engage with what's practically possible. Glaringly, Section 230 has to be fixed.
Section 230 is a mistake. Social media sites are not "dumb pipes" like water, electricity or phone lines. Yes, media outlets traditional and new need to have limitations on responsibility by publishing certain views where the speakers are responsible for that content.
BUT media outlets can and should be responsible for what they publish within that context: many US media outlets are the perfect example of why anything else is a serious mistake, way beyond the clear and present danger definition The Supreme Court used to have.
The current standard leaves much to be desired. In my opinion, it's simply too weak and lets too much clearly dangerous and damaging speech conveyed to millions of people without consequence (or a degree of culpability) for those inciting to what will predictably lead to crimes.
Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action
Depends on the site. Your email is a dumb pipe. CDNs are. So is Discord. Wordpress. Github. Even Facebook itself used to be a dumb pipe, merely facilitating communication between your peers. That...
Section 230 is a mistake. Social media sites are not "dumb pipes" like water, electricity or phone lines. Yes, media outlets traditional and new need to have limitations on responsibility by publishing certain views where the speakers are responsible for that content.
Depends on the site. Your email is a dumb pipe. CDNs are. So is Discord. Wordpress. Github. Even Facebook itself used to be a dumb pipe, merely facilitating communication between your peers. That kinda went away when they stopped showing stuff chronologically.
Throwing out 230 is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The reality is that Congress has, to this day, virtually 0 technical savvy and thus any law they create can and will be abused horrifically because they don't understand the ramifications of the laws they would create.
Remember SOPA? That targeted the safe-harbor provision for copyright infringement. I wish I could find the research referenced here:
Adding to the threat to free speech, recent academic research on global Internet censorship has found that in countries where heavy legal liability is imposed on companies, employees tasked with day-to-day censorship jobs have a strong incentive to play it safe and over-censor — even in the case of content whose legality might stand a good chance of holding up in a court of law. Why invite legal hassle when you can just hit “delete”?
And ultimately, we have to remember that the definitions of illegal speech can and will change, and with right-wing authoritarians at the helm, I'd rather not open that can of worms.
The EFF is first and foremost concerned with how the government manages free speech and digital rights, which makes their positions on issues clearer. But do note that they're not in opposition to...
The EFF is first and foremost concerned with how the government manages free speech and digital rights, which makes their positions on issues clearer. But do note that they're not in opposition to moderating and removing hate speech. They're in favor of hate speech moderation being done by platforms, not the government, and users being responsible for what they say online.
And, given that a significant amount of their work relates to free speech in places with authoritarian governments like Russia and Egypt - where governments there (ab)use hate speech and threat laws to arrest citizens and journalists - it makes sense that they're much more concerned about over-regulation than under-moderation.
How is this a relevant critique? What does it mean to have a "fundamentalist view on free speech"? Is the critique here about the extremity of the position? That's silly, as this is posted on a...
The EFF has fundamentalist views on free speech that limit the actual freedom of expression for all sane individuals who will not put up with the harassment that predictably follows from speaking in many areas.
How is this a relevant critique? What does it mean to have a "fundamentalist view on free speech"? Is the critique here about the extremity of the position? That's silly, as this is posted on a site where many users identify as "anti-capitalist", as if EFF's supposed "fundamentalist view on free speech" is deleteriously extreme but the views of folks on this forum are not. Why should this article be refuted simply by a strawman conjured by a few lines on Section 230?
In this article, the EFF's apparent stance on several ways of regulating online platforms simply don't engage with what's practically possible. Glaringly, Section 230 has to be fixed.
That's not what I got out of the article. The EFF here doesn't take a strong stance for or against Section 230. In fact, the article itself concludes with "We hope 2022 will bring a more constructive approach to internet legislation. Whether it does or not, we’ll be there to fight for users’ right to free expression." Instead, I view the EFF's actions as pushing back on legislation that could have potentially harmful effects on speech.
The article spends its time:
Criticizing the SAFE Tech Act for incentivizing online platforms to switch to advertising/sell-your-data models of revenue leading to rampant data privacy abuse.
Criticizing the PACT Act for allowing motivated/well-financed actors to suppress speech. "[The PACT Act] would have allowed for would-be censors to delete speech they don’t like by getting preliminary or default judgments"
Criticizing the JAMA Act for being senseless. "JAMA would make it almost impossible for a service to know what kind of curation of content might render it susceptible to lawsuits."
Criticizing Ron DeSantis for trying to place limits on private entities' censorship of speech on their platforms. "The First Amendment prohibits the government from requiring a service to let a political candidate speak on their website, any more than it can require traditional radio, TV, or newspapers to host the speech of particular candidates."
Criticizing Gregg Abott's social media legislation due to being capricious.
These all seem like reasonable concerns to me. Is there a specific point you wish to refute in the article?
The EFF has fundamentalist views on free speech that limit the actual freedom of expression for all sane individuals who will not put up with the harassment that predictably follows from speaking in many areas.
The EFF's has sane views on accepting many of the necessary limits to free speech, like protections for state secrets/ongoing diplomacy, non-protection for sexualized material of children, for fighting words and a host of other exceptions. However, the organization arbitrarily does not recognize other necessary measures for maximizing freedom of expression, like banning hate speech.
This leads the EFF to be simply wrong on many speech issues in fundamental ways because their outdated principles of speed don't account for instantaneous and unedited mass communication.
In this article, the EFF's apparent stance on several ways of regulating online platforms simply don't engage with what's practically possible. Glaringly, Section 230 has to be fixed.
Section 230 is a mistake. Social media sites are not "dumb pipes" like water, electricity or phone lines. Yes, media outlets traditional and new need to have limitations on responsibility by publishing certain views where the speakers are responsible for that content.
BUT media outlets can and should be responsible for what they publish within that context: many US media outlets are the perfect example of why anything else is a serious mistake, way beyond the clear and present danger definition The Supreme Court used to have.
The current standard leaves much to be desired. In my opinion, it's simply too weak and lets too much clearly dangerous and damaging speech conveyed to millions of people without consequence (or a degree of culpability) for those inciting to what will predictably lead to crimes.
Depends on the site. Your email is a dumb pipe. CDNs are. So is Discord. Wordpress. Github. Even Facebook itself used to be a dumb pipe, merely facilitating communication between your peers. That kinda went away when they stopped showing stuff chronologically.
Throwing out 230 is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The reality is that Congress has, to this day, virtually 0 technical savvy and thus any law they create can and will be abused horrifically because they don't understand the ramifications of the laws they would create.
Remember SOPA? That targeted the safe-harbor provision for copyright infringement. I wish I could find the research referenced here:
And ultimately, we have to remember that the definitions of illegal speech can and will change, and with right-wing authoritarians at the helm, I'd rather not open that can of worms.
The EFF is first and foremost concerned with how the government manages free speech and digital rights, which makes their positions on issues clearer. But do note that they're not in opposition to moderating and removing hate speech. They're in favor of hate speech moderation being done by platforms, not the government, and users being responsible for what they say online.
And, given that a significant amount of their work relates to free speech in places with authoritarian governments like Russia and Egypt - where governments there (ab)use hate speech and threat laws to arrest citizens and journalists - it makes sense that they're much more concerned about over-regulation than under-moderation.
@vord covered my feelings on Section 230 well.
How is this a relevant critique? What does it mean to have a "fundamentalist view on free speech"? Is the critique here about the extremity of the position? That's silly, as this is posted on a site where many users identify as "anti-capitalist", as if EFF's supposed "fundamentalist view on free speech" is deleteriously extreme but the views of folks on this forum are not. Why should this article be refuted simply by a strawman conjured by a few lines on Section 230?
That's not what I got out of the article. The EFF here doesn't take a strong stance for or against Section 230. In fact, the article itself concludes with "We hope 2022 will bring a more constructive approach to internet legislation. Whether it does or not, we’ll be there to fight for users’ right to free expression." Instead, I view the EFF's actions as pushing back on legislation that could have potentially harmful effects on speech.
The article spends its time:
These all seem like reasonable concerns to me. Is there a specific point you wish to refute in the article?