パスワードを忘れた? アカウント作成

Twitter、トランプ大統領の投稿を「誤解を招く恐れがある」と分類。大統領は反発し規制・閉鎖をほのめかす」記事へのコメント

  • 大統領令が出た (スコア:2, 参考になる)

    by Anonymous Coward on 2020年05月29日 8時44分 (#3823696)

    大統領令が出た
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preven... [whitehouse.gov]

    プラットフォーム提供者に影響がありそうなセクションだけ抜き出すと、法律で定められている以上の内容の削除、非表示化をした企業はプロバイダーとしての免責から外れて、編集者や出版社と同様、全ての投稿内容についての責任を負うことになるようだ。

    Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

    Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

    In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

    ここに返信
    • by Anonymous Coward

      もっと無茶なことするのかと思ってたけど割と常識的だなという印象
      この大統領令も批判されるのだろうけど、どういう批判になるのか楽しみ

      • by Anonymous Coward

        そら最初トランプが怒りに任せてぶちかましたアイディア通りなら、それこぞ政府による言論弾圧そのもので、
        周りが止めるよ、いくらなんでもw

        トランプ政権がいままで生き延びてこれたのは、お頭は人気投票で選ばれただけの人物でも、
        それをサポートする取り巻きは、実力でその地位までのし上がってきた理知的な人たちだからだ。

    • by Anonymous Coward

      これ真面目に対応しようとするとトランプ大統領みたいな怪しい内容を投稿するアカウントは即BANするしか無くなると思うんだけど…それでいいのかねぇ。

      • by Anonymous Coward

        それな。
        Twitter社からしたら「え? トランプの投稿の内容の責任取っていいんですか? じゃあ消しますね!」って渡りに船だと思う。

        • by Anonymous Coward

          いいんじゃないかな。トランプも他所で発言すれば。トランプ発言チェックしたい人も動くだけでしょ

    • by Anonymous Coward

      内容としては訓告に近いかなぁ。
      頭を抱えるのはボースがパスされたFCCだけど、230条改正するとプラットフォーマーが事前検閲する口実になるから大統領が言ってることとは真逆になりかねんしな。
      実際にいじろうとするとカウンターの訴訟が確実に起こるだろうし、かなり分が悪い訴訟になるから(判例がいくつもあるから)、そこまで持っていけないのじゃないかな。
      負けでもしたら悲惨すぎる。
      流石にこれはザッカーバーグ氏も反対意見を出したな。

計算機科学者とは、壊れていないものを修理する人々のことである

処理中...