Coalition Of Internet Companies Who Are Decidedly Not 'Big Tech' Raise Their Voices About The Importance Of Section 230
from the good-for-them dept
A few weeks ago we noted that smaller, but still important, internet companies were working to get in the room on the discussions regarding Section 230 in Congress. The issue is that, among many in Congress and the media, they believe (falsely) that Section 230 is some sort of subsidy "only for Big Tech." As we've pointed out many times, the opposite is true. Facebook and Google have giant legal teams who can handle the liability without 230. It's everyone else who is screwed. This is why Facebook has always been first in line to undermine Section 230.
As you'll recall, Facebook was the key cog to fold and support FOSTA, pressuring the Internet Association to support the law, and allowing Congress to claim (falsely) that "tech" supported the law. Right after that happened I remember talking to some of the smaller members of the Internet Association who were absolutely livid about the situation, and how they felt that Facebook and IA completely threw them under the bus to cement Facebook's own position in the market.
With the fight over 230 heating up again it looks like a bunch of those companies have decided not to make the same mistake again. They've started a new organization, called Internet.Works to advocate on issues around 230. The coalition is made up of a bunch of important and successful internet companies, all of whom rely on Section 230, but who are not Google, Facebook, Amazon, or Apple. Instead, it's Automattic (the WordPress guys), Cloudflare, Dropbox, eBay, Etsy, Glassdoor, GoDaddy, Medium, Nextdoor, Patreon, Pinterest, Reddit, Snap, TripAdvisor, Vimeo, and Wikimedia.
The organization is clearly set up to be a counterbalance to Facebook's ability to completely undermine 230 for everyone else:
“These well-known internet companies and nonprofits launched Internet Works to elevate the voice of stakeholders across the digital economy and work with policymakers to preserve the benefits of Section 230, the foundational internet law that enables the United States to lead the world in innovation and robust job growth in the technology sector,” said Josh Ackil, Spokesperson for Internet Works. “Internet Works members rely on CDA 230 to make their platforms safe for users and support free expression. This coalition brings new voices and diverse perspectives to Washington’s current Section 230 debate, which too often focuses on the largest internet platforms.”
Internet Works and its members represent different corners of the Internet ecosystem, and rely heavily on Section 230 to act responsibly to protect users and compete in their respective markets. In working with policymakers in Washington, the coalition will work to preserve the benefits of Section 230 for consumers and the internet ecosystem and promote the competition, diversity, and user choice in technology and services that this provision provides.
The group has also put out a "myths & facts about Section 230" document that is quite good and acts as a much less snarky version of my 230 myth debunker.
MYTH: Section 230 primarily helps large social media platforms.
FACT: Section 230 protects internet sites and users by providing a legal basis for organizations of all shapes and sizes to moderate content. It prevents internet service providers (ISPs), internet sites of all sizes, and users from being held liable for objectionable content posted by other users. Section 230 doesn't just apply to social media platforms.
It also protects online services that provide volunteer community moderation, such as message boards, as well as other organizations including PTAs, schools and libraries. Without the protection Section 230 provides, many of these organizations could face crippling lawsuits over user-posted content.
Unfortunately, only the largest corporations or organizations could withstand the possible wave of litigation over user-posted content which could occur if Section 230 is weakened or repealed.
The group does say that it supports "a unified approach to reform" which has had some worried that they were caving in as well, but the group is saying all the right things regarding the important benefits of 230. And it's (stupidly and unfortunately) probably necessary for them to say they're open to reform to even get a seat at the table. This is, of course, dumb that they have to say that, but because all of DC has decided (incorrectly) that 230 is the problem, not admitting that is being (falsely) seen as evidence that you're "not willing to discuss."
An article in Bloomberg notes that basically the rest of the internet industry is pissed off at Facebook and recognizes the company's willingness to throw the open internet under the bus to maintain its market position (while also claiming to be "responsive" to Congress's misplaced anger).
There is “a real myopia among legislators of only thinking of Facebook and Google” as they consider bills to address online hosting, said Emma Llanso, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a policy group. “That is a real concern for smaller websites and applications, because they do not have the resources these larger companies do.”
It will be worth watching what happens with this new coalition, but it's important that their voices get heard by those in Congress (and the media) who keep insisting that Section 230 only benefits Google and Facebook.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 230 reform, coalition, fosta, intermediary liability, section 230
Companies: facebook, internet association, internet works
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Coalition Members
No Discord?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coalition Members
Or Wix??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or the 1989 Denver Broncos?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wix owns Deviantart. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wix.com)
Though that would be hilarious. The 1989 Broncos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coalition Members
Isn't that the company that decided unilaterally to take down an imageboard because they disagreed with the content?
Why are they supporting this coalition? Seems to me that they already have the censorship regime in place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Coalition Members
You mean 8chan/8kun?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I can’t imagine why a service provider like Cloudflare would have a problem with a site known for allowing practically any kind of content — including CSAM — and refusing to moderate that content at all~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Coalition Members
My memory seems to be acting up a bit, could you remind me what imageboard that might have been and what content they might have 'disagreed' with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Coalition Members
Decided to take down...
They are under no obligation to provide services to assholes, especially assholes of questionable legality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Coalition Members
Should check your provider then, considering your tone.
So says the users of a site that openly disparages political elite, many video game companies, tech in general, the police, big pharma, Monsanto, etc..... I'm sure someone would love your site to go down for your user's comments / content too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Coalition Members
They didn't "take down" an imageboard, they refused to serve said imageboard. As they have the right to do.
There's a big difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Coalition Members
Nice word play. Here have some more:
The whole point of revoking 230 is to encourage online companies to silence their users by making said companies legally liable for their user's content. Cloudflare's nervousness about the imageboard giving them negative PR, finally caused Cloudflare to pull their services from the imageboard. I.e. Cloudflare did the very thing that is encouraged by revoking 230 for simple PR reasons. Now imagine what companies like Cloudflare will do if they become legally liable for the sites they serve. Legal liability is a much greater issue for companies than negative PR. I'd imagine Cloudflare would quickly exit the market entirely given their previous behavior.
Of course the issue with free speech is that those who defend it must always defend the "worst" of us to do so. As it's never about whether or not politically / socially / correct speech is allowed, but speech that society deems "undesirable."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Coalition Members
Reality check for the deliberately lying purple AC:
Back in the real world, the image board would be even less-hosted without 230 than with it, due to hosts' newfound liability for or the board's content being far more burdensome than some dipshits' butthurt at its disappearance.
See what happened when Stormfront intentionally sought out hosts in countries where its content was illegal to fuel its persecution complex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GoDaddy
I get why GoDaddy supports section 230 (hard to host websites when you are liable for the all content) but it's worth remembering they supported SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GoDaddy
Yes, though basically it's an entirely new company now. Almost the entire senior exec staff has since changed. The company has some good people there now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GoDaddy
Good for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: GoDaddy
Good for them... at the moment. But remember that the wheel turns, and in a few years they may have yet a different set of execs.
Much the same reason that laws need to be crafted (carefully) rather than relying on <the current president>'s executive orders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have already seen that Facebook doesn't want to compete in an open internet. Just look at their closed system "internet" that was offered in India for a time to try to get people to sign up for a "free" internet service that only went to Facebook sites.
What was that old saying, "Too big to compete, legislate instead".
Facebook is just trying to lock up the market so that there is Facebook and only Facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False premise
That's the whole game right there. They've decided to repeal 230, and it's not up for debate.
Says a lot about our politicians when they are the ones deciding what changes to the law are up for debate / reform. Instead of the public.
The default position for any member of the public faced with this situation should be to call out the politicians for what they are: Dictators. Regardless of issue. Remind them that the public controls congress. If the public wants to debate an issue, congress' job is to shut up and take notes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False premise
Section 230 reform had gained a lot of public popularity in recent years, up from zero percent, to whatever it is now. The morally ugly position of the internet censors has taken its toll. There is now considerable support to prevent tech companies from being both a publisher and a platform simultaneously, and the politicians are reflecting that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: False premise
Good grief...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: False premise
shut up, Meg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: False premise
Well, if politicians and people like you keep lying on what section 230 really is you can always get some people to believe in the lies.
Is it morally ugly to moderate hate-speech, racism, lies and subjects you don't agree with?
"Considerable"? It's more like a few technological illiterates screaming about something they don't want to understand, plus they don't really like the 1st amendment. Complete idiots the lot of them.
All I hear from people like you is how butthurt you are that you aren't allowed to spew your shit on someone else's property and want to wield the government to do something about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: False premise
Does Koby == Mason Wheeler?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: False premise
I think the demagogues dragging their sheeple around by their noses has more to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False premise
They decided to repeal 230 but can not agree on how to repeal 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: False premise
That won't stop them.
Look at Brexit: same thing happened, did it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: False premise
It seems to me that if people want to repeal a law for exactly opposite and contradictory reasons, that suggests that the law is a decent compromise between the two opposing positions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting way to
Force a monopoly.
And does anyone think this happened in the past.
regulations to restrict a market?
Or The Corps afford to Buy them out?
Which is easier?
"Section 230 protects internet sites and users by providing a legal basis for organizations of all shapes and sizes to moderate content."
There is something abit OPEN about this statement.
"MODERATE CONTENT"
Think it was Portal, went to court, because they Moderated the comments, and LOST. Only because they Didnt allow everyone to say/do anything they wanted.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/isps-dont-have-1st-amendment-right-to-edit-inter net-fcc-tells-court/
ISPs don’t have 1st Amendment right to edit Internet, FCC tells court
The end problem is what happens IF' you let anything/everything Stand as Printed?
Its still happening, spamming. Bots roaming around finding ways into Forums and Blasting everything in 30 seconds or less.
Do you think FB moderates? MSN? Google? Any of the larger Net systems?
What about those sites that allow comments on their Food/products/goods? And there is a small line about NO BAD COMMENTS OR A $200 FINE?
(isnt that against the law, YEP)
So, if we/People/customers/Clients/all of us have the RIGHT to post anything we want, and IT CANT BE ERASED. does Copyright/RIAA/MPAA or any other Major corp have any rights to Sue us? IF' this is placed as PART of freedom of speech, they Should NOT have any ability to SUE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting way to
https://law.jrank.org/pages/23335/Zeran-v-America-Online-Inc-Significance.html#:~:text=(1995)%20the% 20court%20ruled%20against%20the%20ISP%2C%20Prodigy.&text=Section%20230%20of%20the%20act,solely%2 0on%20the%20original%20authors.
The first case addressing Internet Service Provider (ISP) liability for third-party posted defamation statements was Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc. in 1991. However, that case involved a known author and the service provider, CompuServe, won its case by claiming lack of editorial control, hence no liability for the particular messages. Then, in Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy Services, Inc. (1995) the court ruled against the ISP, Prodigy. Because Prodigy placed some controls over what could be posted on its system, the court considered Prodigy a publisher and, therefore, responsible for the content of posted statements. The Stratton decision sent shock waves through the Internet industry and potentially set the stage for considerable online defamation lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting way to
The hecklers will exercise their veto, and turn the whole Internet into 8KUN, and then each one will complain that they are the only person left on the Internet who is not an arsehole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Please don't throw us into that briar patch...'
There is “a real myopia among legislators of only thinking of Facebook and Google” as they consider bills to address online hosting, said Emma Llanso, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a policy group. “That is a real concern for smaller websites and applications, because they do not have the resources these larger companies do.”
Which is really the ultimate irony in the whole thing, in that time and time again the big bad Big Tech companies held up as reasons to cripple or get rid of 230 are the same ones that will benefit the most from that happening.
Honestly you almost have to hope that the politicians are 'just' being bought and led around on leashes by the companies in question because the alternative has them as such colossal idiots that there's no telling how much damage they can and will cause 'with the best of intentions'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Please don't throw us into that briar patch...'
Ditto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Reddit wants to act like it’s a good guy, then it’s going to have to start acting like it. Last I checked, the site twiddled their thumbs while r/The_Donald festered, gave the subreddit enough time to get organized to move most of their operations off to another site, and then Reddit pulled the plug on it when it was basically an empty shell that was no longer profitable. They’re going to have to work double-time to show that they actually care about the freedom to moderate content that Section 230 gives them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
True.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who owns reddit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Advance publications (Majority)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this good or bad for us??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Automattic, Cloudflare, Dropbox, eBay, Etsy, Glassdoor, GoDaddy, Medium, Nextdoor, Patreon, Pinterest, Reddit, Snap, TripAdvisor and Vimeo are very defintely big tech.
The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit that operates an educational website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is Wix big tech??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those companies aren’t “Big Tech” in that they’re one of the Big Five (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft), whose combined power in the tech sector practically runs all of it. Amazon rules online shopping, Apple and Microsoft make the operating systems that run an overwhelming majority of computers, Facebook rules social media, and Google rules both search and online video. Aside from maybe Cloudflare and GoDaddy, can any of the companies on that list claim they have anything even close to a similar-yet-still-lesser level of power and fame/notoriety within the tech sector as the Big Five?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If those companies are all "big tech" then "big tech" has no meaning at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]