成都治疗血管瘤好的方法成都前列腺肥大的治疗费用,成都糖足好的医院是哪,成都治疗脉管炎截肢的方法,成都治疗下肢静脉曲张价格多少,成都有没有打精索静脉曲张的医院,成都治初期静脉曲张多少钱,成都市静脉曲张的医院

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

ESCONDIDO, Calif. (KGTV) — Police are searching for the driver responsible for hitting and killing a woman on a North County freeway this week.A person lying on the right shoulder of westbound State route 78 under the Rock Springs Rd. overcrossing was reported to police just after 6 a.m. Wednesday, according to California Highway Patrol.Escondido Fire Department and CHP found a 26-year-old female from Escondido, who appeared to have been hit by a vehicle, dead on the right shoulder.No vehicle was found at the scene. CHP is investigating how and why the woman was on the freeway.The suspect vehicle is described as a 2017/2018 Mercedes Benz E-Class sedan and believed to be green. CHP said the vehicle should have damage to its right front fender and wheel well.Anyone with information on the collision is asked to call CHP at 858-637-3800. 853

ESCONDIDO, Calif. (KGTV) - Escondido Police requested the public’s assistance Monday to find the driver responsible of a crash that seriously injured a motorcyclist. The incident happened Oct. 16 at 4:38 p.m. in the 200 block of W. Washington Ave., police said. A man driving a white Ford F-150 pickup truck struck the motorcyclist and left the scene, according to investigators. Police said the man was in his late 30s, Hispanic, and had a mustache. He was wearing a gray shirt and baseball cap. There was a woman in the passenger seat and a child sitting between them. The first two digits on the license plate may be 8F. Police said the Ford F-150 will have damage to the rear passenger side tail light and tailgate. Anyone with information is asked to call Officer Frank Huston of the Escondido Police Department Traffic Division at 760-839-4423. 858

FBI agents who raided the home, office and hotel of Donald Trump's personal lawyer sought communications that Trump had with attorney Michael Cohen and others regarding the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape that captured Trump making lewd remarks about women, which surfaced a month before the election, according to sources familiar with the matter.The warrant's specific reference to Trump is the first known direct mention of the President in a search warrant, and sources said it appeared in connection with "Access Hollywood."One of the sources said the warrant also referenced an investigation into wire fraud and bank fraud. CNN previously reported FBI agents removed Cohen's computer, cellphone, business files and financial documents, according to the source.The search warrant also sought communications between then-candidate Trump and his associates regarding efforts to prevent disclosure of the tape, according to one of the sources. In addition, investigators wanted records and communications concerning other potential negative information about the candidate that the campaign would have wanted to contain ahead of the election. The source said the warrant was not specific about what this additional information would be.The warrant is the first indication that investigators suspect there was any effort to suppress the tape. It is not clear Cohen played any role in the Access Hollywood controversy.Another source familiar with the matter confirmed to CNN that agents sought information regarding the Access Hollywood tape, as The New York Times first reported.An attorney for Cohen didn't respond immediately to request for comment. Cohen's attorney has said the search was carried out on behalf of the US attorney's office in Manhattan in part because of a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller.The warrant itself also tracks very closely to information already known about efforts by Trump's team to suppress negative information about Stormy Daniels, a porn star who alleges a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, and Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who says she had an affair with Trump between 2006 and 2007, the source said. There were no other women beyond Daniels and McDougal named in the warrant in regard to the President, the source said.Three sources with knowledge believe that the information sought was not just to target Cohen but was also clearly aimed at discovering what Trump knew, if anything, about these efforts and any potential involvement he may have had in keeping the information from going public.Trump has denied relationships with both Daniels and McDougal.A source with knowledge of the matter said NBCUniversal, which produces "Access," has not been contacted by Mueller's office or the Southern District of New York. There has been no subpoena, the source said.An NBC spokesman declined to comment.The circumstances of the leaked Access Hollywood tape remain something of a mystery. NBC has long held that it was about to broadcast the tape when The Washington Post obtained and published it. 3085

ELIZABETH, N.J. (AP) — A man who gained internet fame as "Kai the Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker" was sentenced to 57 years in prison Thursday for the beating death of a New Jersey man he had met in Times Square.Caleb McGillvary will have to serve at least 85% of his sentence under terms imposed in state Superior Court in Union County.The 30-year-old Alberta, Canada, native was convicted last month of killing 73-year-old lawyer Joseph Galfy at Galfy's New Jersey home in May 2013. Authorities said the two met in New York City and the defendant stayed at Galfy's home.McGillvary alleged he acted in self-defense following an attempted sexual assault. Prosecutors said his statements were inconsistent and also cited the victim's extensive injuries. Galfy was found beaten to death in his bedroom, wearing only his socks and underwear.Several days after Galfy's death, an employee at a Starbucks in Philadelphia recognized McGillvary, and he was arrested at a bus station.A few months before meeting Galfy, McGillvary gained a measure of fame after intervening in an attack on a California utility worker.In a TV interview viewed millions of times online, he described using a hatchet he was carrying to repeatedly hit a man who had struck the worker with his car, and also fend off a further attack on two women. 1321