Tag Archives: CDA 230

How to Avoid High-Risk Hires

The New York Times has published a disturbing article that shows how some online reputation damage happens: intentionally.

In A Vast Web of Vengeance, tech reporter Kashmir Hill details how one person spent years creating false, negative posts about more than a hundred people. They have suffered extreme reputation damage due to 1200 defamatory posts that are too unpleasant to print here. In her article, Hill describes “the power of a lone person to destroy countless reputations, aided by platforms like Google that rarely intervene.”

Yes: On the internet, anyone can be impersonated, harassed or the focus of “fake news.” It persists because of the Communications Decency Act Section 230, (CDA 230), a law that protects the platforms that publish such information — publishers like Google, Facebook, Twitter and millions of blogs, forums and websites — against liability for third-party content on their websites.

We have written extensively about the need to update that law.  That includes our interviews with leaders active in the movement to change it, notably:

Dan Shefet, a member of our Advisory Board, who established the Association for Accountability and Internet Democracy (AAID), which has lobbied the European Commission to introduce rules to make it easier for others to remove harmful information online.

 Right2Remove, which advocates for “Right to Remove” privacy policy legislation “that allows for the removal of content from Internet platforms that is designed to cause reputational harm to consumers in the United States.”

For more insight on this topic, our blog post  No Right to be Forgotten Here is also relevant.  And be sure to check out, The Case for Bringing the Right to be Forgotten to America.

Here is to more investigative journalism focusing on this important topic, including changing the law that enables such harmful content to remain on the internet forever, or at all.

 
 
CDA 230

We rarely write about politics.

But President Trump’s attack on the legal loophole that allows online hate speech – Communications Decency Act, Section 230 — caught our attention. In short, he wants to do away with it.

We often lament the presence of the CDA 230, as it is known. In my recent article on Medium, I explain why:

On the internet, any of us can be impersonated, harassed or the focus of “fake news.” It persists because of the Communications Decency Act Section 230, a law that protects the platforms that publish such information — publishers like Google, Facebook, Twitter and millions of blogs, forums, and websites — against liability for third-party content on their websites.

We have helped many clients who have been adversely affected by the type of harassment the CDA 230 permits. So, we have been following this story with much interest. Why would President Trump want to remove that law? One reason: Twitter has been moderating his tweets and flagging content it considers questionable.

The New York Times described his intent:

The executive order that Mr. Trump signed on Thursday seeks to strip liability protection in certain cases for companies like Twitter, Google, and Facebook for the content on their sites, meaning they could face legal jeopardy if they allowed false and defamatory posts.

In another article, Times reporter Daisuke Wakabayashi explained how the CDA 230 works:

…Section 230 shields websites from liability for content created by their users. It permits internet companies to moderate their sites without being on the hook legally for everything they host.

Section 230 has allowed the modern internet to flourish. Sites can moderate content — set their own rules for what is and what is not allowed — without being liable for everything posted by visitors.

…Websites trading in revenge pornography, hate speech or personal information to harass people online receive the same immunity as sites like Wikipedia.

This topic will be in the news for weeks to come. Legal experts think it is unlikely that the CDA 230 can be substantially changed by President Trump’s action.  Our hope, like others who support updating it, is that it can be done through appropriate legislative channels.

Related reading: Removing Content from Google in the U.S.