濮阳东方收费正规(濮阳市东方医院咨询医生热线) (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

Even with millions of unemployed Americans amid the worst pandemic to hit the US in a century, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has nearly fully recovered from its record-high levels in February.For the first time since Feb. 20, the Dow Jones closed above 29,000 on Wednesday, finishing the day at 29,100.The Dow Jones has historically had a 7% growth rate a year, and it’s possible the Dow could still finish the year on track. That comes after the Dow bottomed out in March at 18,591.While the Dow Jones has seen a recovery, many Americans are still feeling the pinch from the coronavirus. The unemployment rate remains above 10%, which is more than double the pre-pandemic unemployment rate.The economic news has continued to be dire as major companies, such as MGM and United Airlines are planning on furloughing or laying off employees.Whether the economic woes on Main Street eventually affect Wall Street remains to be seen, but President Donald Trump took credit on Wednesday for the Dow Jones’ figures. 1019

Faced with a growing advertiser exodus, Fox News host Laura Ingraham apologized Thursday for a widely derided tweet in which she mocked Parkland survivor David Hogg."On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland," Ingraham said on Twitter. "For the record, I believe my show was the first to feature David immediately after that horrific shooting and even noted how 'poised' he was given the tragedy. As always he's welcome to return to the show anytime for a productive discussion."Ingraham, a staunchly pro-Trump commentator, came under fire on Wednesday, when she tweeted out a story from the right-wing website Daily Wire about Hogg's rejection from four different colleges."David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it," she said. "(Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)" 946

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

ENCINITAS, Calif. -- No dancing allowed. Sounds a little like the movie, “Footloose” right? Well, it’s real — and it’s the law in the city of Encinitas, California.“We got in trouble for people dancing here,” said Brie Cardosa, owner of Mr. Peabody’s Bar and Grill. The restaurant was fined ,000 for allowing their patrons to dance while listening to live music.Cardonas' restaurant has been providing food and live music for more than a decade. She said they have never had any run-ins with the law until they recent fine from the Alcohol Beverage Control.“We didn’t realize we were doing anything wrong,” Cardosa said.The fine stemmed from a city law that makes it illegal to dance in Encinitas during evening hours.Encinitas Councilman Tony Kranz believes his predecessors created the law in 1986 to prevent several dance clubs from being built in the city, or to dissuade people from behaving lewdly at alcohol-serving establishments.“I think it’s just the result of cities trying to limit their liability," he said. "And make it an enjoyable experience for everybody that comes out."The crackdown took place after the city received an overwhelming number of complaints from a number of area bars. Many Peabody’s fans have taken a stand by signing an online petition to let them keep dancing.You can find the petition here. Cardosa said dancing to music is a natural reaction, and found it hard to force her patrons to remain still. “We just don’t want to get in trouble if we’re dancing, or if someone starts moving around,” Cardosa said. “We don’t want to tell them that they can’t dance. It’s such a difficult type thing to explain to someone.”Kranz agrees. “I’ve been there before. and I’ve seen some dancing. I might have even swayed to the music a couple of times there,” he said. “The (Alcohol Beverage Control) interprets their rules that if you sway to the music, you could be in violation of the rules. That is not what city council is interested in having happen.”Encinitas City staff have started work on a revision to the current, and outdated law. In the meantime, Cardosa is hoping the petition persuades the council to let them stay as is. Her other options are to turn in a “deemed approved ordinance” application to temporarily be approved or to submit the “entertainment establishment permit,” also known as the “cabaret permit.” This would allow Mr. Peabody’s to have “dancers“ inside their venue.But that doesn't really align either. “We don’t want to be a dance club. We don’t want to be a dance venue,” Cardosa said. “I hope to have the support of the city behind us, and just you know, move on.”Cardosa said she will continue to host live music at the restaurant several nights a week, without dancing. She is working with city staff to find the best way to legally run her business while making her patrons happy. 2912

来源：资阳报