枣庄癫痫治疗中心(烟台癫痫病医院具体位置) (今日更新中)

Even during this time of strong political divisiveness, lawmakers agree there should be changes to Section 230. Congressional committees have subpoenaed the CEOs and heads of major tech companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google multiple times to answer questions about possible bias, eliminating competition, allowing misinformation to flourish, etc., all trying to get to the heart of what should be done about Section 230.So, what is it?Section 230 refers to a section of just 26 words within the 1996 Communications Decency Act.It 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.”This particular section makes it so internet companies are generally exempt from liability for the material users post on their networks.Which means, if a news website article makes false malicious statements about a person, that person can sue the publication for libel. However, if that article is posted on social media and spread to hundreds of thousands of people, the person can only sue the individual who posted the article and cannot hold the social media company responsible for spreading the article.The wording of Section 230 also allows internet companies, and more specifically social platforms, to moderate their content by removing or censoring posts that are obscene, violent or otherwise violate that specific platform’s terms of service and standards, so long as the social platform is acting in “Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.This has allowed online social platforms to grow and thrive, offering a space for users to share their thoughts and opinions, without the fear that those thoughts and opinions will get the platform in trouble. The wording for Section 230 came from established case law, including a Supreme Court ruling in the middle part of the 20th Century, which held that bookstore owners cannot be held liable for selling books containing what some might consider obscene content. The Supreme Court said it would create a “chilling effect” if someone was held responsible for someone else’s content.“Today it protects both from liability for user posts as well as liability for any clams for moderating content,” said Jeff Kosseff, who wrote a book about Section 230 and how it created the internet as it is today.President Donald Trump in May signed an executive order that would clarify the scope of the immunity internet companies receive under Section 230.“Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse,” the order reads.One of the issues raised in the executive order is the question of when does a social platform become a so-called “publisher” by making editorial decisions about the content on the platform. Those decisions include controlling the content allowed on the platform, what gets censored, and creating algorithms that spread certain content further or faster.Content publishers are held to different rules and responsibilities by the Federal Communications Commission. News publishers can be held liable for the content they share on their platform, either in print or online.The president’s executive order came after Twitter started adding a fact-check warning to his tweets that contain false or misleading information. The executive order does not allow the president to change the law, but rather encourages his administration to take a look at Section 230.Lawmakers on both sides have concerns about how social platforms are abusing the protection they receive under Section 230, and have held several committee meetings.Many experts agree Section 230 cannot just be removed.If social platforms are suddenly held responsible for the content on their sites, there could be a whole new level of moderation and censorship as they clamp down on anything remotely controversial and unproven - possibly including some of the president’s own posts.Instead, lawmakers are investigating what changes, if any, could be made to Section 230 to offer clarity for both users and internet companies, as well as set boundaries for potential liability. 4178

ENCINITAS, Calif. (KGTV) - City leaders in Encinitas plan to ban gas-powered leaf blowers to help curb the effects of climate change.They're hosting a public meeting about the ban Monday night, May 13, at 6 p.m. at the Encinitas Community Center (1140 Oakcrest Park Drive).The ban is part of the City's bigger Climate Action Plan, which the City Council approved in January of 2018. It calls for a 41 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 when compared to 2012 baseline levels.The plan says removing emissions from gas-powered leaf blowers would remove 142 Metric Tons of CO2 by 2030. That's the equivalent of taking roughly 25 cars off the road.While it's not a huge improvement, people in Encinitas say every small step will help."I think they ought to be eliminated everywhere," says David Winkler, who goes to Encinitas to meet friends. "The less reliance on fossil fuels, the better.""People come from all over the world here, so we should make it as clean and beautiful as we can," says Encinitas resident Linda, who declined to give her last name. "Anything we can do to lessen pollution is always a good thing."Other North County cities already have bans in place. Solana Beach and Del Mar both prohibit the use of gas-powered leaf blowers.City leaders in Encinitas say their rule is different because it bases the ban on environmental concerns, rather than noise pollution.The ban only covers two-stroke leaf blowers. Other gas-powered tools like weed whackers and chain saws will still be allowed.If the ban is approved, it will take effect immediately for all city-run operations. After three months, any business licensed to operate in Encinitas will have to comply. After six months, the ban will cover everyone else in the City.The City has a website with more information about the ban and the overall Climate Action Plan. 1863

ESCONDIDO (KGTV) – An Escondido couple is out thousands of dollars after falling for a sophisticated truck scam“You hear about it everywhere, but you’re like it’s not going to happen to me,” Terha Newby said.   Terha and her husband, Chris, found the perfect truck for sale on Craigslist back in September. Someone from El Monte was selling a Chevy Silverado 2600 HD for about ,000. “The registration matches the pink slip, the VIN, everything. You’re like, 'Its good!'” Terha said.  But it was far from good.It turns out the truck was stolen out of Orange County last year. Afterwards, someone replaced the VINs on the truck with a duplicate VIN of a truck that someone owns in Texas. They even had matching paperwork to go with it. But the VINs set off an alarm for the DMV when the Newbys went to get their new truck registered.“The VIN that was in the vehicle belonged to truck in Texas, and it was on a lien,” Terha said. “These guys are professionals, they’re out there, and that’s all they do for a living.”Chris said the seller gave them a Carfax report, but it was a fake one. He now regrets not getting their own. “From now on, for a fee, Carfax would have prevented it,” Chris said.The stolen Silverado was impounded and went back to the insurance company of the truck’s original owner. Luckily, they sold it back to the Newbys for about ,000, which they gladly agreed to.“They told us this is not something we do, but they felt bad for our situation,” Tehra said. “Still tough we had to re-buy anything.”“I’m just glad I have a car,” Chris said.The CHP gave these car-buying tips when buying from a third person private party. 1700

ESPN host Jemele Hill's tweet calling President Trump a "white supremacist" earned a stinging rebuke from Trump's press secretary on Wednesday.From the White House podium, Sarah Sanders said Hill's criticism of the president was a "fireable offense by ESPN."It was a highly unusual moment -- a White House official seemingly recommending that a Trump critic be booted from a television network.Trump aides have pressured media executives about anti-Trump commentators in the past, but those complaints were made in private. This time it was on-camera for all to see.The briefing room exchange came two days after Hill went on a tweetstorm about Trump.Hill has been vociferously critical of the president all year long, but she went further this time, calling Trump a "bigot," a "threat" and "the most ignorant, offensive president of my lifetime."The tweet that garnered the most reaction said: "Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists."Hill, an African American woman, followed up with this: "His rise is a direct result of white supremacy. Period."Amid an outcry from conservatives on social media, ESPN responded on Tuesday afternoon by reminding people that her comments "do not represent the position of ESPN."The network alluded to disciplinary action, but did not provide any details."We have addressed this with Jemele and she recognizes her actions were inappropriate," ESPN said.Hill's remarks and ESPN's response gained widespread attention in conservative media circles on Tuesday and Wednesday, including on some of Trump's favorite Fox News shows.Fox's Tucker Carlson dubbed the network "Endless Stupid Political Nagging."For Carlson and others, Hill's comments were just the latest in a long line of examples of what they see as liberal bias inside ESPN.Washington Post White House reporter David Nakamura, who previously covered sports for the paper, asked Sanders on Wednesday if the president had a reaction to the controversy."I'm not sure if he's aware" of the tweets, Sanders said, "but I think that's one of the more outrageous comments that anyone could make, and certainly something that I think is a fireable offense by ESPN."Some Trump critics said they were disturbed by Sanders' talk of a "fireable offense.""Today, the White House press secretary used the people's podium to call for the firing of an individual citizen, @jemelehill. Take that in," MSNBC's Joy Reid wrote.Hill had no immediate comment. Neither did an ESPN spokesman.Hill deleted Monday's incendiary tweets and hasn't posted anything since ESPN weighed in on Tuesday.There's been a substantial backlash to the backlash, with Hill's supporters saying she described Trump accurately, and should not be reprimanded for having done so.ESPN critics, on the other hand, said the network's response was too soft, and that a suspension or firing was in order.Sanders' remarks on Wednesday are sure to keep the debate raging.The-CNN-Wire 2990

ENCINO (CNS) - Authorities today served a search warrant at the Encino home of hip-hop producer Mally Mall in connection with an investigation into human trafficking and the trafficking of exotic animals, according to police and a celebrity news website.The warrant was served early this morning in the 4000 block of Grimes Place by personnel from the Los Angeles Police Department's Robbery-Homicide Division and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, according to the LAPD.According to TMZ.com, the ``Love and Hip Hop'' star was home at the time of the raid.According to Mall's website, he has worked with artists such as Tyga, Drake, Justin Bieber, Future, Sean Kingston, and Snoop Dogg. 707

来源：资阳报