So…what is it? The Verge defined it this way:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in 1996, says an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. This protects websites from lawsuits if a user posts something illegal, although there are exceptions for copyright violations, sex work-related material, and violations of federal criminal law.Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA) crafted Section 230 so website owners could moderate sites without worrying about legal liability. The law is particularly vital for social media networks, but it covers many sites and services, including news outlets with comment sections — like The Verge. The Electronic Frontier Foundation calls it “the most important law protecting internet speech.”
Speaking to 1A, Sen. Mark Warner said it’s time to reexamine Section 230, even though many tech companies have said they can’t operate in the same way without it. And this is what the president has said while out on the campaign trail.
The case, which was filed in federal court in Washington, marks the most aggressive action by the U.S. government against a tech company in decades. The DOJ accuses Google of leveraging its dominant position in search and search-advertising to elbow out rivals and disadvantage competitors.In a blog post, Google Senior Vice President Kent Walker called the lawsuit “deeply flawed.”
The case revolves around some of Google’s antitrust weak spots: the exclusive, billion-dollar agreements that require mobile-phone manufacturers to keep Google as their default search engine, as well as Google’s decision to preload Google search on Android phones. The European Union fined Google $5.1 billion over similar allegations two years ago.
If we change Section 230 — what do we risk? And what could be gained? And does this lawsuit represent the beginning of the end for Google as we know it today?
Interview: 
No comments:
Post a Comment