綦江区觅町美甲加盟电话多少钱(淮安市清伊美甲加盟店电话多少钱) (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)- School leaders in a north county school district are trying to figure out how to address a legal petition filed by their teachers' union.The San Dieguito Union High School District Board of Trustees held an emergency closed-door meeting Tuesday at Earl Warren Middle School in Solana Beach.A few dozen students and some parents gathered outside the school to protest the district's plan to return to in-person instruction in January."Our teachers have taught us to stand up for what's right, and we see that the board is not listening to their needs, their concerns, they're putting their lives at risk, so we are here to support our teachers," said student Andrea Gately.Parent Julie Bronstein said distance learning is not ideal, but she doesn't think it's safe for kids to return when the virus is surging."Why can't we just wait a bit more, get ourselves out of the danger zone, get beyond the surge, make sure teachers are able to be vaccinated to the extent possible, and then reopen in a grander fashion," said Bronstein.Late last Tuesday night, the San Dieguito Union High School District Board of Trustees voted to give students the option to return to school one day a week on January 4th, then five days a week for in-person instruction on January 27th.Parents like Jane Woltman say students should have returned to class months ago."When they asked if kids wanted to go back full time in October, 80% of those parents said yes, yet we didn't go back then. We weren't in the purple tier then," said Woltman.Woltman has two kids at La Costa Canyon High School."I just think the social well being of kids is diminishing. Kids are losing engagement, and basically, this is a teaching model that was not intended to be long term," said Woltman.Friday, the California Teachers Association filed a legal petition on behalf of the local teachers' union to block the January return.Duncan Brown is a counselor at Diegueno Middle School and Oak Crest Middle School. He's also the president of the San Dieguito Faculty Association. He says the district's plan violates the governor's regional stay at home order."It goes against CDC guidelines, it goes against CDPH rules, most districts have reconsidered reopening plans, but San Dieguito continues to move forward," said Brown.Under the state's health mandate, schools that were already open for in-person instruction were allowed to stay open when the county fell back into the purple tier. The union is challenging the district's definition of what is considered an open school."All the instruction is done through small cohorts, and we believe the intent of the reopening plan was if grades were going through a reopening. For example, 9th and 10th grade were invited back, then under those kinds of understandings, 11th and 12th graders would be able to continue the reopening as well," said Brown.Parents who believe kids should be back in school say the union is just delaying things."I just think it's a stall tactic, and the union doesn't want to go back period. I don't think that's the voice of a lot of teachers who are afraid of ramifications if they speak up," said Woltman.The board president says the district's reopening plan follows the guidance issued by The California Department of Public Health and includes detailed protocols for distancing and ventilation.Teachers in high-risk groups for the virus or with childcare issues can continue teaching remotely until January 27th, but the district hasn't decided beyond that. 3529

ESCONDIDO, Calif. (KGTV) - People who own chickens in the North County are taking extra precautions to protect their flocks, as a deadly bird disease creeps closer to San Diego County.The California Department of Food and Agriculture issued aquarantine for birds in Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties after reports of the disease. With all three counties surrounding San Diego, officials here have issued warnings to chicken owners to look out for symptoms.According to the San Diego County Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures, symptoms include:Sudden death and increased death loss in flock.Sneezing, gasping for air, nasal discharge, coughing.Greenish, watery diarrhea.Decreased activity, tremors, drooping wings, twisting of head and neck, circling, complete stiffness.Swelling around the eyes and neck.They say anyone who sees these symptoms in their birds should contact the CDFA Bird Hotline at at 866-922-BIRD. 953

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

Federal investigators are pushing for measures that would require tech companies to grant them access to encrypted data in criminal cases, according to a New York Times report.The FBI and Justice Department have reportedly enlisted the help of security experts, arguing they could find ways to technically and legally bypass a device's safety features without compromising its security.For years, the federal government and the tech industry have sparred over encryption in criminal cases.Federal agencies have said they are facing a "going dark" problem -- "eroding investigators' ability to carry out wiretap orders and search warrants," writes the Times -- because they cannot bypass devices' security measures. Investigators have argued that modern encryption technologies, as well as the rise of privacy and cyber security concerns, have hampered or completed undermined some criminal investigations.Communication service providers and other tech companies fear government-mandated access would would weaken necessary consumer protections.That issue came to a head in 2015 following the San Bernardino terror attack. Looking for evidence in the shooter's phone, the FBI demanded that Apple help unlock it. Apple CEO Tim Cook refused to comply, arguing the order would create a backdoor into their devices. 1323

来源：资阳报