Congress Threatens To Censor The Internet Again

From representatives to senators to presidents, various governmental agents have made varying promises to bring about the end of Section 230—a piece of legislation that has been dubbed “The 26 words that made the Internet.” On Thursday, a five-hour hearing marked the third time in less than five months that Congress members ostensibly threatened social media and tech CEOs with increased regulation if their demands were not met.

Journalist Gleen Greenwald has been diligently covering Congress’ efforts to push social media and tech companies to further censor their platforms. Democrats want to know why tech companies haven’t done more to prevent the discussion of election fraud, anti-vaccine sentiment, and the spread of extremist ideology. Republicans, on the other hand, feel that tech companies have overstepped the protections provided in Section 230 and are calling for the removal of those protections. Section 230 itself reads,

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

The New York Times has found yet another place on the internet allowing "unfiltered" conversations (😲) and is so unhappy about it that they put it on their front page.https://t.co/5m1OjHr85L pic.twitter.com/RVfV372H3M

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 26, 2021

At the risk of oversimplifying the legislation, Section 230 allows people to say almost anything they want on the internet without the platform being responsible for what was said. To put it another way, Section 230 allows you to say what you want on Facebook without Facebook being responsible for what you say. Of course, Section 230 extends well beyond the confines of Facebook. For example, section 230 allows this site to accept readers’ comments without making us legally responsible for what might be said. It allows Twitch streamers to have live chats with their followers. It allows consumers to give you their reviews of games that you find on Steam.

At one point, Congresswoman Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX) wondered if Congress shouldn’t create a list of “domestic terrorist” organizations, much in the same way they have done with ISIS and Al Qaeda. She then asked Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai whether such as list would help police their respective platforms. All three of the CEOs stated something to the effect of “we need to look at that idea before we can answer.”

We’ve been discussing tech censorship and the future of the internet since January 7 on the Gameboard podcast, following Facebook’s second arbitrary ban of the administrators of a Fallout 76 roleplaying group. After repeated requests for information, Facebook ceased contact and refused to say why the administrators had been banned. Those accounts were subsequently reinstated, though members said they would be leaving the platform forever.

Opinion

I’ve discussed this subject several times on the Gameboard podcast. The removal of protections that are provided by Section 230 would change the nature of the internet forever. It is my belief that both Twitch and Twitter are moving toward a subscriber or verified account platform. Through these methods, the companies can have a reasonable assumption that their users won’t sue them if Section 230 is either repealed or amended.

While there are legitimate concerns about tech monopolies and their power over public discourse, it is much more concerning that Congress is interested in changing the rules. Section 230 provides all of us with the ability to make our minds heard in the public sphere. Without the protections that Section 230 provides, the average person won’t be able to contribute to any discussion on the internet. If that happens, we all lose.

Source: CNBC | Glenn Greenwald

Twitch Has Been Banning 4 Partner Channels A Day Since January 1

More and more people are turning to Twitch for their gaming centered viewing needs. In fact, the number of channels on Twitch is up by 40% since last year, according to the company. With this increase in users, though, Twitch has taken a severe stance on comment and content moderation.

Part of this moderation is done through creator tools, such as auto-moderation, and the other part is done by the company itself. According to a report found in Forbes, Twitch has banned more than 270 of the sites top streamers—either permanently or temporarily. In total, the streaming site has banned 321 channels since the beginning of the year.

Today we released our first ever global Transparency Report, which provides an inside look at our safety approach, the reports we receive, and our work to keep communities safe.

You can learn more about the data and access the report via the blog:https://t.co/CFz350UUnO

— Twitch (@Twitch) March 2, 2021

<p value="<amp-fit-text layout="fixed-height" min-font-size="6" max-font-size="72" height="80">However, Twitch isn't always forthcoming with the reasoning behind the bans, and has even reversed its decision in a few cases. The highest-profile case that can be pointed to is the ban of Dr. Disrespect from the platform—a ban that neither Twitch or Dr. Disrespect has provided any explanation for. A British Call of Duty player was also banned "by mistake" from the platform and subsequently had their channel reinstated. However, Twitch isn’t always forthcoming with the reasoning behind the bans, and has even reversed its decision in a few cases. The highest-profile case that can be pointed to is the ban of Dr. Disrespect from the platform—a ban that neither Twitch or Dr. Disrespect has provided any explanation for. A British Call of Duty player was also banned “by mistake” from the platform and subsequently had their channel reinstated.

Of course, Twitch isn’t only for gamers. There are plenty of singers, commentators, and politicians who use the platform to communicate with their audiences—some of whom have also been banned.

As the platform continues to grow, there is an expectation that there will be more moderation needed to ensure that the company’s terms of service are followed.

Opinion

We’ve discussed it before on the podcast, but it appears as though Twitch, along with the rest of social media, is positioning itself to survive any changes to the way that “Section 230” is administered. If section 230 is changed at all, social media platforms, like Twitch, could be open to litigation because of the comments that are left on videos—whether Twitch endorses them or not.

That kind of threat is likely why Twitch is so eager to show what kind of moderation tools it has in place, as well as its willingness to ban channels regardless of the size of the community.

In short, this is a preemptive strike—one that’s meant to show congress that Twitch is acting “responsibly” in digital space.