How Section 230 Could Change The Internet As We Know It | NBC News Now


>>THANKS.>>>IT IS A TIME — IT HAD A>>>IT IS A TIME — IT HAD A HUGE IMPACT ON THE INTERNET. HUGE IMPACT ON THE INTERNET. SECTION 230, LAWMAKERS ON BOTH SECTION 230, LAWMAKERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE WANT TO SIDES OF THE AISLE WANT TO CHANGE HOW CONTENT IS MODERATED CHANGE HOW CONTENT IS MODERATED ONLINE. ONLINE. WHAT EXACTLY IS SECTION 230? WHAT EXACTLY IS SECTION 230?>>THE SECTION 230 IS A PIECE OF>>THE SECTION 230 IS A PIECE OF LAW THAT SAYS THE WEBSITES LAW THAT SAYS THE WEBSITES AREN’T RESPONSIBLE FOR THE AREN’T RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT THAT’S POSTED ONLY CONTENT THAT’S POSTED ONLY THERE. THERE. SO IF I WRITE SOMETHING ON YELP SO IF I WRITE SOMETHING ON YELP IT’S NOT YELP’S FAULT. IT’S NOT YELP’S FAULT. BUT IT DOES ALLOW YELP TO BUT IT DOES ALLOW YELP TO MODERATE AND TO FILTER OUT THE MODERATE AND TO FILTER OUT THE PROFANCY AND TRY TO CREATE THE PROFANCY AND TRY TO CREATE THE COMMUNITY THEY WANT. COMMUNITY THEY WANT. WHEN IT’S WRITE — WHEN THIS LAW WHEN IT’S WRITE — WHEN THIS LAW WAS WRITTEN ON THE BOOKS IN 1996 WAS WRITTEN ON THE BOOKS IN 1996 THE IDEA WAS TO GIVE INCENTIVES THE IDEA WAS TO GIVE INCENTIVES FOR WEBSITES AND FOR TECH FOR WEBSITES AND FOR TECH COMPANIES TO HAVE SOME RULES COMPANIES TO HAVE SOME RULES OVER THE ROAD. OVER THE ROAD. BUT THEY WANTED TO MAKE EVERYONE BUT THEY WANTED TO MAKE EVERYONE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. BECAUSE PREVIOUS LAW SAID TO BECAUSE PREVIOUS LAW SAID TO MODERATE YOUR CONTENT, YOU’RE MODERATE YOUR CONTENT, YOU’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND IT WAS THIS RESPONSIBLE FOR AND IT WAS THIS WAS DESIGNED TO TAKE THE WAS DESIGNED TO TAKE THE INSENSIVE AWAY. INSENSIVE AWAY. ALL 26 WORDS OIFRT NO ONE SHOULD ALL 26 WORDS OIFRT NO ONE SHOULD BE TREATED AS THE PUBLISHER OR BE TREATED AS THE PUBLISHER OR THE SPEAKER OF ANY INFORMATION THE SPEAKER OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY ANOTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY ANOTHER INFORMATION CONTENT PROVIDER. CONTENT PROVIDER. THAT’S REALLY DENSE BUT THAT’S REALLY DENSE BUT BASICALLY IT JUST SAYS IF I BASICALLY IT JUST SAYS IF I WRITE SOMETHING ON THE INTERNET WRITE SOMETHING ON THE INTERNET IT’S MY FAULT, NOT THE PERSON IT’S MY FAULT, NOT THE PERSON WHOSE WEBSITE I’M WRITING ON. WHOSE WEBSITE I’M WRITING ON. NOW, THAT WAS PERCEIVED BY MANY NOW, THAT WAS PERCEIVED BY MANY COURTS TO ESSENTIALLY TAKE ALL COURTS TO ESSENTIALLY TAKE ALL RESPONSIBILITY FROM THE TECH RESPONSIBILITY FROM THE TECH COMPANIES FOR WHAT’S ON THE COMPANIES FOR WHAT’S ON THE INTERNET AND THAT’S WHAT WE KNOW INTERNET AND THAT’S WHAT WE KNOW OF THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT. OF THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT. THE BASTIONS OF FREE SPEECH AND THE BASTIONS OF FREE SPEECH AND A GROWING NUMBER OF LAWMAKERS A GROWING NUMBER OF LAWMAKERS HAVE THE 26 WORDS AS SOMETHING HAVE THE 26 WORDS AS SOMETHING TO GO AFTER. TO GO AFTER. DEMOCRATS WANT TIGHTER — MORE DEMOCRATS WANT TIGHTER — MORE REGULATION OF THE CONTENT GOING REGULATION OF THE CONTENT GOING OUT THERE. OUT THERE. THEY SAID IT’S CREATING VIOLENCE THEY SAID IT’S CREATING VIOLENCE ON THE INTERNET, AND REPUBLICANS ON THE INTERNET, AND REPUBLICANS HAVE ZEROED IN ON THE DIFFERENT HAVE ZEROED IN ON THE DIFFERENT PART OF THE LAW THAT SAYS THAT PART OF THE LAW THAT SAYS THAT YOU CAN MODERATE THE CONTENT AND YOU CAN MODERATE THE CONTENT AND YOU’RE STILL NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU’RE STILL NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. IT. THAT MODERATION THEY DON’T LIKE THAT MODERATION THEY DON’T LIKE THAT. THAT. THEY THINK THAT THE TECH THEY THINK THAT THE TECH COMPANIES ARE MODERATING AGAINST COMPANIES ARE MODERATING AGAINST THEM AND THAT THE INTERNET IS THEM AND THAT THE INTERNET IS BIASED AGAINST CONSERVATIVES. BIASED AGAINST CONSERVATIVES. THERE’S A REALLY PERVASIVE MYTH THERE’S A REALLY PERVASIVE MYTH ABOUT SECTION 230 AND THAT’S ABOUT SECTION 230 AND THAT’S WHAT IT REQUIRES NEUTRALITY. WHAT IT REQUIRES NEUTRALITY. IF YOU’RE WASHINGTON, D.C., AND IF YOU’RE WASHINGTON, D.C., AND A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS TALK A BUNCH OF POLITICIANS TALK ABOUT IT, THE LAW REQUIRES ABOUT IT, THE LAW REQUIRES NEUTRALITY AND THEREFORE GIVES NEUTRALITY AND THEREFORE GIVES PROTECTIONS TO TECH COMPANIES PROTECTIONS TO TECH COMPANIES WHO WITNESS — WHO AREN’T WHO WITNESS — WHO AREN’T BIASED. BIASED. AND THE DIVERSITY OF IDEAS, BUT AND THE DIVERSITY OF IDEAS, BUT NOT EVERY LAW REQUIRES NOT EVERY LAW REQUIRES NEUTRALITY. NEUTRALITY. IT DOESN’T SAY YOU HAVE TO BE IT DOESN’T SAY YOU HAVE TO BE NEUTRAL. NEUTRAL. IT SAYS YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN IT SAYS YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN RULES FOR THE WEB AND THAT’S RULES FOR THE WEB AND THAT’S FINE. FINE. SOME DEMOCRATS WANT MORE SOME DEMOCRATS WANT MORE MODERATION, MORE REGULATION OF MODERATION, MORE REGULATION OF CONTENT ON THE INTERNET. CONTENT ON THE INTERNET. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BETO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BETO O’ROURKE HAS PROPOSED SOME O’ROURKE HAS PROPOSED SOME REGULATIONS FOR COMPANIES THAT REGULATIONS FOR COMPANIES THAT HE SAYS DON’T CRACK DOWN ON HATE HE SAYS DON’T CRACK DOWN ON HATE SPEECH AND VIOLENCE AND SPEECH AND VIOLENCE AND RADICALIZATION ONLINE. RADICALIZATION ONLINE. MY COLLEAGUE DAVID INGRAM AND I MY COLLEAGUE DAVID INGRAM AND I ACTUALLY TALKED TO A LOT OF ACTUALLY TALKED TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT EXPERTS AND INDUSTRY DIFFERENT EXPERTS AND INDUSTRY LEADERS. LEADERS. ONE OF THE REPUBLICANS WHO WROTE ONE OF THE REPUBLICANS WHO WROTE THE LAW YEARS AGO WHO HAS SINCE THE LAW YEARS AGO WHO HAS SINCE RETIRED FROM CONGRESS AND PEOPLE RETIRED FROM CONGRESS AND PEOPLE SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU’RE TALKING SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT HOW YOU WANT TO CHANGE ABOUT HOW YOU WANT TO CHANGE THIS, HOW YOU WANT TO USE THIS, THIS, HOW YOU WANT TO USE THIS, AS A BARGAINING CHIP TO GET AS A BARGAINING CHIP TO GET SOMETHING OUT OF TECH COMPANIES SOMETHING OUT OF TECH COMPANIES THAT HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF POWER. THAT HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF POWER. BUT YOU DON’T HAVE ANY GOOD BUT YOU DON’T HAVE ANY GOOD SOLUTIONS. SOLUTIONS. ONE OF THE GOOD SOLUTIONS WOULD ONE OF THE GOOD SOLUTIONS WOULD PUT THE FTC IN CHARGE OF THE PUT THE FTC IN CHARGE OF THE INTERNET. INTERNET. AND IN CHARGE OF OVERSEEING AN AND IN CHARGE OF OVERSEEING AN INTERNET MODERATION AND INTERNET MODERATION AND NEUTRALITY. NEUTRALITY. THAT WOULD OVERWHELM FEDERAL THAT WOULD OVERWHELM FEDERAL RESOURCES A LOT OF PEOPLE TOLD RESOURCES A LOT OF PEOPLE TOLD US AND HOW IS THE FTC GOING TO US AND HOW IS THE FTC GOING TO REVIEW EVERYTHING ON THE REVIEW EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET? INTERNET? PART OF THE REASON THAT THE PART OF THE REASON THAT THE POWER WAS PUT IN THE HANDS OF POWER WAS PUT IN THE HANDS OF THE TECH COMPANIES IS BECAUSE THE TECH COMPANIES IS BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE THE MAN POWER TO THEY DON’T HAVE THE MAN POWER TO REVIEW EVERYTHING ON THE REVIEW EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET. INTERNET. THE TECH COMPANIES ARE THE ONES THE TECH COMPANIES ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE THE BEST SHOT AT TRYING WHO HAVE THE BEST SHOT AT TRYING TO REVIEW SOME OF THIS. TO REVIEW SOME OF THIS. SOME EXPERTS SAID IF YOU GET RID SOME EXPERTS SAID IF YOU GET RID OF SECTION 230 YOU HAVE TWO OF SECTION 230 YOU HAVE TWO POLAR OPPOSITES. POLAR OPPOSITES. YOU HAVE THE INCREDIBLY YOU HAVE THE INCREDIBLY MODERATED INTERNET THAT’S SORT MODERATED INTERNET THAT’S SORT OF LOOKING LIKE MORE LIKE A OF LOOKING LIKE MORE LIKE A MAGAZINE OR YOU HAVE AN INTERNET MAGAZINE OR YOU HAVE AN INTERNET WITH NO RULES AT ALL THAT WOULD WITH NO RULES AT ALL THAT WOULD MORE LIKE — IT WOULD BE LIKE A MORE LIKE — IT WOULD BE LIKE A LOT OF NUDITY, PROFANITY, LOT OF NUDITY, PROFANITY, VIOLENCE. VIOLENCE. TECH COMPANIES QUITE LIKE TECH COMPANIES QUITE LIKE SECTION 230, IT GIVES THEM A LOT SECTION 230, IT GIVES THEM A LOT OF POWER AND FREEDOM AND ONE OF OF POWER AND FREEDOM AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE EXPERTS TOLD THE THINGS THAT THE EXPERTS TOLD US IF YOU GOT RID OF SECTION 230 US IF YOU GOT RID OF SECTION 230 AND USER GENERATED CONTENT WAS AND USER GENERATED CONTENT WAS NOT A HUGE LIABILITY TO PUBLISH NOT A HUGE LIABILITY TO PUBLISH IT WOULD UPEND TWITTER, IT WOULD UPEND TWITTER, FACEBOOK, YOUTUBE THAT DEPEND ON FACEBOOK, YOUTUBE THAT DEPEND ON USER GENERATED CONTENT. USER GENERATED CONTENT. LAWMAKERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE LAWMAKERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE HAVE GOTTEN MUCH MORE AISLE HAVE GOTTEN MUCH MORE INTERESTED IN HOW THE LAW INTERESTED IN HOW THE LAW REGULATES THE INTERNET. REGULATES THE INTERNET. BUT IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT BUT IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT THE ACTUAL LAW WILL SAY. THE ACTUAL LAW WILL SAY. 26 WORDS IN 1996 ARE THE LAW OF 26 WORDS IN 1996 ARE THE LAW OF THE LAND NOW AND UNTIL WE SEE

8 thoughts on “How Section 230 Could Change The Internet As We Know It | NBC News Now

  1. Kids these days all just want to “netflix and chill” and my grandkids can’t even sit down to Sunday supper without looking at their PHONES. The INTERNET is the DEVIL’S WORK. It says so right there in the Bible!

  2. If section 230 cuts down on trolls , then great. But if it censors legitimate opinion , not great. Hate speech , homophobia & profanity directed at another should be treated as spam.

  3. Is it like section 8? 😆🤣😂. Won’t be worth a dayum if so

    Imma go make a fake account with a bunch of bad stuff, then post it on my current site – and I won’t be held responsible. Makes sense.

  4. I started writing HTML as soon as the white paper on it came out. Before browsers existed we had message boards, which were mostly populated with technical stuff. But, if the internet becomes highly censored, the content highly moderated, those message boards will return. And rather than be filled by nerds like me, they will be filled by the radical haters.

  5. Of course Dems want regulation. They know what's best for you !!
    Don't like what you're seeing ?? Swipe !!
    No matter what kind of speech you call it , 1st A takes presidence.
    This law is all that is needed to serve the public interest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *