Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) provides immunity from liability for users who publish information by others. This section’s interpretation is broad in scope and the Senate is currently trying to narrow the scope with the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (1) in response to the Senate Intelligence report on Backpage.com facilitating the trafficking industry (2).
However, Google has jumped in feet first with lobbying efforts to prevent amending Section 230 (3) with Consumer Watchdog connecting lobbying funds from flowing FROM Google to groups working to actively defend Section 230, primarily Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Cato Institute, but also including Podesta Group, under the banner of ‘protecting internet free speech’ (4) (5) (6).
And interestingly, although the EFF parrots itself as a champion of internet freedom, they have been present at and party to some of the biggest government tech privacy decisions ever made, in particular the CPSR Cryptography and Privacy Conference of 1993, discussing the government’s stated objective to require that telecommunications manufacturers and service providers redesign their systems to facilitate wiretapping (7). Although the EFF initially strongly opposed this measure they did eventually negotiate their stance, and what led was the passage of the Digital Telephony Act of 1994, and ultimately paved the way for the NSA’s universal backdoor… a monumental blow to internet freedom.
Now with Google’s Project Owl having been launched, aimed at censoring and suppressing what it determines to be ‘fake news’ (8) I find the narrative of ‘protecting internet free speech’ to be very suspect… And even though Google claims that the ‘Owl’ title doesn’t mean anything in particular, for me it just makes me think of the owl in mythology, in particular Moloch (bohemian grove) and Minerva (DoD project Minerva, ICANN handoff, technocrats).
Frankly, it seems as if the Clintons – Bill, in signing the Telecommunications Act of 96 and Hillary, in championing the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Nancy Scheafer death, CPS corruption, children for sale to enable state ‘cash bonuses’) – are responsible for the two most significant pieces of legislation that have allowed trafficking to foster and thrive in the past few decades, and the industry is now bolstered and protected not only by Google’s ideological stance on internet laws but by Google’s wallet in the funneling of lobbying funds to Congress!
Please forgive me if this is a redundant topic, or seems all over the place. I’m just trying to connect dots. Thoughts?
view the rest of the comments →
argosciv ago
if I may, in short, are you saying that there is both an effort to refine laws to combat trafficking, but that there is also a sorely well-funded attempt to counter that effort?
lawrieraja ago
Essentially, yes. Exactly.
argosciv ago
Ah, well in that case, have an upvoat for visibility.
Fingers crossed money doesn't do the talking on this one :/