FOSTA, which became law in 2018, deserves greater attention as a cautionary tale about what can go wrong with reforms of § 230.
Latest in Section 230
The lawsuit alleges that Facebook gave rise to the far-right extremist boogaloo movement that led Officer Dave Patrick Underwood’s killer and his accomplice to connect.
The Supreme Court vacates the holding that the replies to Trump’s Twitter account are a public forum, and Justice Thomas shares his thoughts on platform regulation.
The notice and takedown system rejected in 1997 might be a way forward.
The power that tech platforms have over individuals can be legitimized only by rejecting the fraudulent contract of Section 230 and instituting principles of consent, reciprocity, and collective responsibility.
In a new Wall Street Journal op-ed, Philip Hamburger argues that “the government, in working through private companies, is abridging the freedom of speech.” This argument doesn’t hold water.
Biden should look to the idea of a systemic duty of care, which says that the platforms are dependent on their users’ social connections and, thus, are obliged to reduce online harms to those users.
Did you ever wonder where all that tech money came from all of a sudden? Turns out, a lot of it comes from online programmatic ads, an industry that gets little attention even from the companies, such as Google, that it made wealthy.
Our interview in this episode is with Michael Daniel, formerly the top cybersecurity adviser in the Obama administration’s National Security Council and currently the CEO of the Cyber Threat Alliance (CTA). Michael lays out CTA’s mission. Along the way he also offers advice to the Biden cyber team—drawing in part on the wisdom of Henry Kissinger.
Why has it taken until now for a Supreme Court justice to pay attention to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act?