• Lab
  • AndroidForMobile Foundation at
    HOME
              
    LATEST STORY
    Can you spot a fake photo online? Your level of experience online matters a lot more than contextual clues
    ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
    March 27, 2014, 5:11 p.m.
    LINK:   |   Posted by: Joshua Benton   |   March 27, 2014

    At Gawker, on revenge porn — the awful practice of jilted men (mostly) posting explicit videos and pictures from their exes online — and the legal backlash building against it. There are bills pending in to ban or otherwise limit revenge porn, and a .

    We’ve written before about a similar issue — those skeezy mugshot sites that post pics from public records and then offer to take them down for a price.

    To state the obvious, most online publishers are in neither the mugshot extortion business nor the revenge porn game. But even the most legitimate publishers should be watching this space because, in both cases, changing is one of the ideas being tossed around. Section 230, as this old AndroidForMobile Lab video will tell you, is the part of U.S. law that says (in nearly all cases! I am not a lawyer!) that websites aren’t held responsible for what’s posted by their users. If one of your readers falsely calls his neighbor a child molestor in the comments section of your news site, that reader might well be guilty of libel — but your site isn’t. In a very real sense, it’s the law that allows the Internet as we know it to exist; imagine if sites had to preclear all user contributions everywhere, whether on a blogging platform, on Twitter, or elsewhere.

    As Mary Anne Franks, a University of Miami law professor working on the federal revenge porn bill, tells Gawker:

    …online entities protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act are provided with a special defense against state criminal laws, but not against federal criminal laws (or federal copyright laws, for that matter). A federal law means that a revenge porn site claiming to merely provide a platform for angry exes to upload sexually explicit images of their former partners will not be able to hide behind Section 230.

    And as Gawker commenter dontshootme responds:

    I think the EFF’s concerns [about amending 230] are being under valued here. The likelihood of overreach is very large, in my opinion. Also, it strikes me as being very dangerous to start messing with Section 230. I get that this is a very real problem, I just suggest a knee-jerk reaction by lawmakers (which is what almost always happens with public outcry type stuff) will result in bad law…

    Maybe it’s just me, but I seem to see a lot of talk about how “bad” section 230 is (not in this article) so when I see issues like this, I get concerned that a law will be created that generates an exception. I believe we should go after the ones who upload. [Revenge porn king] Hunter Moore’s situation is fairly straightforward, but what about sites that link to it? Are they responsible? How about if I linked to it here in the comments, is Gawker responsible? Right now, no. If we weaken 230 then censorship gets easier and easier.

    Here’s .

    Show tags Show comments / Leave a comment
     
    Join the 50,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
    Can you spot a fake photo online? Your level of experience online matters a lot more than contextual clues
    Whether an image looks like a random Facebook post or part of a New York Times story doesn’t make much of a difference. But your level of experience with the Internet and image editing does.
    Publishers will soon no longer be able to detect when you’re in Chrome’s incognito mode, weakening paywalls everywhere
    A growing number of news sites block incognito readers, figuring they’re probably trying to get around a paywall. But a change from Google will again let people reset their meter with a keystroke.
    R.I.P. Quartz Brief, the innovative mobile news app. Maybe “chatting with the news” isn’t something most people really want to do?
    Just because people like to chat on their phones doesn’t mean they want to chat with you, news organizations.
    https://topobzor.info

    www.topobzor.info/mi-power-bank-pro/

    лазерная эпиляция киев цены