Google is manipulating search results over the issue of proposed legislation that would change Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (see 1708010011, 1708110022 and 1709070033), returning links that favor information from organizations that oppose the bill, alleged Consumer Watchdog in a Monday news release. When searching for "Section 230," the consumer group said three of the top four links returned under the news tab were articles from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which opposes the bill. But competing search engines like Bing and DuckDuckGo provided "links to articles presenting all sides of the issue," CW said. Google appears "to be stacking the deck to favor their own purposes,” said CW Privacy Project Director John Simpson, whose organization backs the bill. "This claim is completely false," a company spokeswoman responded. "We have never re-ranked search results to manipulate political sentiment. We always strive to provide our users with the most authoritative, useful, relevant answers to their queries. A site’s ranking on Google Search is determined using hundreds of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query." Proponents say the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (S-1693) would help victims get justice without affecting tech innovation, while the tech industry, including Google, and civil liberties groups say the bill would hold tech companies liable for user-generated content without curbing online sex trafficking.
Critics of a popular Senate bill aimed at amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to hold online platforms liable for sex trafficking ads (see 1708010011) said it's a slippery slope that could lead to more changes such as tech companies being responsible for issues like countering violent extremism. But, during an R Street Institute panel Thursday, advocates said 230 has become a major hurdle for victims to take those responsible to court.
The First Amendment constrains what government can do to limit free speech, but it doesn't put any such restrictions on companies like GoDaddy, Google and Twitter that refused to host the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer (see 1708180005, 1708150001 and 1708140044) or share advertising revenue with "hateful videos" after the Charlottesville, Virginia, protests, blogged American Enterprise Institute visiting fellow Daniel Lyons Friday. "And this is exactly as it should be," he wrote. "Absent some contractual provision to the contrary, companies should not be compelled to carry speech with which they disagree." Others said such actions have "somewhat disrupted the net neutrality narrative," said Lyons. But Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act not only shields service providers and ISPs from content written by others, it also protects the providers if they restrict access to material they find offensive, he added.
Decisions by Cloudflare, GoDaddy and Google not to manage neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer (see 1708150001 and 1708140044) are "dangerous" because they can have "far-reaching impacts on speech around the world," blogged Electronic Frontier Foundation Executive Director Cindy Cohn, Senior Global Policy Analyst Jeremy Malcolm and International Director Danny O'Brien. The actions followed Aug. 12 clashes between white nationalists and counterprotesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. Companies have the right to decide what speech does and doesn't appear on their platforms and are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, said EFF: But "precedents being set now can shift the justice of those removals." Access Now similarly blogged Thursday about the issue and provided recommendations.
A bipartisan coalition of 50 state and territorial attorneys general is urging lawmakers to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to clarify that state officials have authority to investigate and prosecute online child sex traffickers. In a letter from the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), the state officials said federal enforcement alone can't stem such online activities and they want Congress to consider the proposed change. House and Senate lawmakers proposed bills that essentially would eliminate federal liability protections for websites that help violate federal sex trafficking laws and also empower state law enforcement officials to take action. tech and civil society groups said the proposed changes to Section 230 are too broad and would curb free speech (see 1708010011 and 1708110022). The NAAG letter was addressed House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and ranking member Mike Doyle, D-Pa., and Senate Communications Subcommittee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and ranking member Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. AGs from the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and all states, except for Connecticut and Massachusetts, signed.
The tech community will oppose any revision of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, regardless of the revision, said a senior aide to Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who's one of more than two dozen co-sponsors of the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (see 1708110022). Lawmakers say S-1693 would narrowly amend CDA to curb online sex trafficking and wouldn't affect legitimate actors. Technology and civil society organizations say it will restrict internet free speech (see 1708010011). Lee's aide said industry incorrectly thinks the bill would "open the door" for more changes: "Based on that reasoning, Congress wouldn’t have inserted the existing exceptions to Section 230 immunity, concerning obscenity and sexual exploitation of children, and those haven’t broken the Internet.”
Lawmakers and tech and civil liberties groups appear to have dug in their heels, possibly putting compromise out of reach on a Senate bill that would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in an effort to curb online sex trafficking. "We did our due diligence, met with the tech community on a bipartisan basis for months and yet they offered no constructive feedback. We’re happy to continue the dialogue, but the claims we’ve heard from some in the tech community about this narrowly-crafted bill are absurd," said a spokesman for Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio., who introduced the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) last week. He said more co-sponsors are expected after the August break. Nineteen Republicans, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and eight Democrats, including Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., are signed onto S-1963.
Civil society organizations, think tanks and a major tech association pressed Capitol Hill lawmakers Thursday not to move ahead with the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (S-1693), which the groups say will produce an onslaught of "frivolous" lawsuits and discourage intermediaries from policing their sites because the legislation is so broad (see 1708020019 and 1708010011). In a Thursday letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Access Now, R Street Institute, TechFreedom and eight other groups said Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act "need not be treated as sacrosanct" but rushing through amendments such as attaching them to the National Defense Authorization Act "would be a mistake of historic proportions." They said it should go through the committee process and get public input. CTA President Gary Shapiro, in a Wednesday letter to Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., co-chairs of the Senate Caucus to End Human Trafficking, cited the same reasons for opposing the proposal. He urged Congress to press DOJ to go after "rogue websites" violating the law as the tech industry works to prevent sex trafficking.
Tech trade groups said more action is needed to stop sex trafficking and hold companies like Backpage.com accountable (see 1701100001), but that Senate legislation amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (see 1708010011) would "severely undermine a crucial protection for legitimate online companies." In a Wednesday letter to Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., among the 20 senators who introduced the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act the previous day, the 10 associations said Section 230 encourages "positive legal behavior" and doesn't shield companies from liability of federal crimes, including prosecution for human trafficking. But the bill would have a "devastating impact on legitimate online services" without meaningfully stopping trafficking crimes and, instead, generate "frivolous litigation targeting legitimate, law-abiding intermediaries," the consortium said. The groups -- including Computer and Communications Industry Association, Internet Association and Software & Information Industry Association -- said Congress should work with DOJ to prioritize prosecutions, target rogue sites and coordinate international enforcement. CTA President Gary Shapiro agreed that amending Section 230 would "create a trial lawyer bonanza of overly-broad civil lawsuits," saying DOJ has tools to go after traffickers. CCIA Vice President-Law and Policy Matthew Schruers told us Tuesday the tech industry plans to educate Congress about member companies' fighting trafficking including an estimated more than 100,000 content moderators who try to flag illegal activities. He said information about bad actors and content and misconduct also are shared among firms, and there's cooperation with law enforcement and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. "There's a great deal of interest in stamping out [bad actors] simply because your brand depends on doing so," he said.
A bipartisan Senate bill aimed at curbing online child sex trafficking by amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, considered a foundation in expanding the U.S. internet economy, will have an uphill battle, predicted technology and civil society advocates who say there's a better approach. They said Tuesday that fighting online trafficking is needed, but the legislation is too broad and would have unintended consequences.