宜宾做双眼皮手术多少钱啊-【宜宾韩美整形】，yibihsme,宜宾怎么能永久脱毛,宜宾整形美容双眼皮多少钱,宜宾哪里双眼皮整形好,宜宾怎么脱毛,宜宾自取耳骨隆鼻多少钱,宜宾有双眼皮可以割吗
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
FARGO, N.D. — A man smashed the office window belonging to a North Dakota senator with an ax. The attack was caught on security camera video Monday morning.The man calmly walks up a set of stairs around 9 a.m. before turning toward the Fargo office of U.S. Senator John Hoevens. He then begins repeatedly swinging the ax toward the door eventually smashing the window. 376
Europe is proposing a ban on single-use plastic items such as cutlery, straws?and cotton buds in a bid to clean up the oceans.The European Commission wants to ban 10 items that make up 70% of all litter in EU waters and on beaches. The list also includes plastic plates and drink stirrers.The draft rules were unveiled Monday but need the approval of all EU member states and the European Parliament. It could take three or four years for the rules to come into force.The legislation is not just about banning plastic products. It also wants to make plastic producers bear the cost of waste management and cleanup efforts, and it proposes that EU states must collect 90% of single-use plastic bottles by 2025 through new recycling programs.The European Commission estimates that these rules, once fully implemented in 2030, could cost businesses over �3 billion (.5 billion) per year. But they could also save consumers about �6.5 billion (.6 billion) per year, create 30,000 jobs, and avoid �22 billion (.6 billion) in environmental damage and cleanup costs.The Rethink Plastic Alliance -- an association of environmental organizations -- called the proposals "a leap forward in tackling plastic pollution" but criticized some perceived shortcomings.The proposals do not set targets for EU countries to reduce the use of plastic cups and food containers, it said."This could result in countries claiming they are taking the necessary steps as long as any reduction is achieved, regardless of how small," the alliance said in a statement.The proposal also faced criticism from the plastics industry.Plastics Europe, which represents manufacturers, said it supported the "overarching objective" of the proposal but said there must be more resources dedicated to "waste management" to ensure better collection of used plastic."Plastic product bans are not the solution," it said in a statement, and noted that "alternative products may not be more sustainable."On a global basis, only 14% of plastic is collected for recycling. The reuse rate is terrible compared to other materials -- 58% of paper and up to 90% of iron and steel gets recycled.Research shows there will be more plastic than fish by weight in the world's oceans by 2050, which has spurred policy makers, individuals and companies into action.Last month a group of more than 40 companies including Coca-Cola, Nestle, Unilever and Procter & Gamble pledged to slash the?amount of plasticthey use and throw away in the United Kingdom.Starbucks also announced in March it was launching a million grant challenge to solicit designs for a cup that's easier to recycle. 2689
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) - The recent birth of a southern white rhino calf marks a major success milestone in the project to save the species' close genetic cousin, the northern white rhino. Only two northern whites are left in the world. Both are females incapable of reproducing.Edward, the calf born in late July, was conveived through in vitro fertilization using frozen sperm samples. "It was so exciting for everyone who worked on this project, the culmination of a very long time and a lot of work," said Dr. Barbara Durrant, a scientist who has worked on the in vitro aspect of the project.Still, Durrant says this milestone still comes during the early stage of the audacious plan. Scientists eventually hope to create northern white embryos with stem cells. Those embryos would then be transferred into female southern white rhinos, who would deliver and raise the calves. The Safari Park brought six females to its facility to act as surrogates, including Victoria, the female who gave birth to Edward.Durrant is excited to move to the next step."We're turning our efforts more toward the lab, toward figuring out how to do the in vitro fertilization and the embryo development.Durrant estimates as long as ten years until the project finally leads to a living northern white rhino calf.Edward is currently being kept in a part of the Safari Park to which the public does not have access. But zookeepers anticipate he'll be ready for public viewing by the end of August. 1489
来源：资阳报