潮州哪里看白癜风病很好(梅州男子头上白癜风如蛇皮) (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

Fat Bear Week is back, and voting is now open. The event is hosted by Katmai National Park and features a dozen brown bears preparing for hibernation.It’s an annual tournament comparing chubby bears and it’s getting renewed attention in 2020 as pandemic-weary Americans search for reasons to smile and look at adorable wildlife.Katmai National Park selects 12 bears preparing for the winter, some have names like “Holly,” who was 2019’s winner, “Grazer,” “Chunk,” “Otis,” and “Walker,” while others are identified by number. They then offer images of the bears from early this summer to images taken in the last few weeks to show how the animals are growing.Voting starts Wednesday and the head-to-head match-ups continue through October 6. Watch the animals on Katmai’s BearCam and vote daily on who is getting to be the fattest.A brown bear eats a year’s worth of food in just six months to help them survive through the winter, when they slow down and hibernate in their dens.The tournament is a way to celebrate the success of healthy bears doing what bears do. 1073

Facebook released an announcement saying that they have helped register over 2 million people to vote.In the release, the social media company said they estimate they've helped register 2.5 million people across Facebook, Instagram and Messenger."With six weeks until Election Day and registration deadlines fast approaching in many states, this week we’re putting the full force of our platform behind this campaign to empower every eligible voter to make their voice heard in this election," Facebook said in the release.News of this comes 43 days ahead of the presidential election, and one day before National Voter Registration Day. 645

ESCONDIDO, Calif. (KGTV) -- An Escondido-based avocado grower is voluntarily recalling avocados sold in bulk due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Henry Avocado Corporation issued the recall Saturday due to positive test results on environmental samples taken during routine inspection of its packaging facility. So far, there are no reports of illness. The recalled products were packaged at Henry Avocado’s packaging facility and distributed to Arizona, California, Florida, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Wisconsin. Customers can identify the recalled fruit by the “Bravocado” stickers. Henry Avocado organic products do not carry the “Bravocado” label on the sticker. Instead those products are labeled “organic” and include “California” on the sticker.All shipments from the facility are subject to the recall. According to the company, avocados imported from Mexico and distributed by Henry Avocado are not part of the recall. The company said in a news release that it’s contacting all affected customers to make sure the products are removed from shelves. Anyone who purchased the recalled product are urged to discard or return the items for a full refund. Listeria monocytogenes can cause high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea. 1303

FALLBROOK, Calif. (KGTV) — One person was killed in a traffic collision on Interstate 15 in the North County early Saturday.The crash was reported just before 4:30 a.m. on northbound I-15, just north of State route 76, according to California Highway Patrol.It's not clear what caused the crash. The victim's identity was not immediately released. A Sig Alert was issued at 5:15 a.m. and all lanes were shut down, though CHP reopened all lanes just before 10 a.m. 471

来源：资阳报