full of, well…

充滿了...

-The most hardcore, perverse types of pornography.

-最核心、最變態的色情類型。

The images came from the Internet. Exon wanted his fellow senators to realize

這些圖片來自互聯網。艾克森希望他的參議員們能意識到

what kids could see…

孩子們能看到的...

-Come by my desk and take a look at this disgusting material.

-到我的辦公桌來看看這些噁心的材料吧

…with just the click of a button.

...... 只需點擊一個按鈕。

-It's certainly not hard to find. And, I was just like, Dad, get a load of this.

-這當然不難找到。我只是想，爸爸，得到一個負載的這個。

In the mid-90s, Americans debated how to handle all kinds of objectionable content on the web,

90年代中期，美國人爭論如何處理網絡上各種令人反感的內容。

including hate speech and defamation. Out of that debate came a law that helped

包括仇恨言論和誹謗。從這場辯論中產生了一項法律，幫助

create the modern Internet, and now both Republicans and Democrats want it changed. It's called:

創造了現代互聯網，現在共和黨和民主黨都想改變它。這就是所謂的。

-Section 230. -Section 230 should be revoked.

-第230條。-第230條應予撤銷。

But what does that law actually do? And what would happen to the Internet if we changed it?

但是，這個法律到底有什麼作用呢？如果我們改變它，互聯網又會發生什麼？

The thing to remember about the 90s is…

要記住90年代的事情是... ...

-On your mark, get set, we're riding on the Internet.

-各就各位，準備好，我們要上互聯網了。

...the Internet was young and few people really understood it.

.當時互聯網還很年輕，真正瞭解互聯網的人很少。

-Allison, can you explain what Internet is?

-艾莉森，你能解釋一下什麼是互聯網嗎？

It seemed cool.

它似乎很酷。

-It's very hip to be on the Internet right now.

-現在在互聯網上很時髦。

-Now that I'm on the Internet, I'd rather be on my computer than doing just about anything.

-現在我上了互聯網，我寧願在電腦上，也不願意做任何事情。

It's really cool.

這真的很酷。

But we hadn't agreed on what to do with all the objectionable content, or if we should

但我們還沒有就如何處理所有令人反感的內容達成一致，或者說我們是否應該：

do anything. James Exon, the senator with the porn binder, wanted the government to

什麼都可以做詹姆士-艾克森，那個拿著色情夾子的參議員，想讓政府...

clean up the Internet by effectively making indecent material like porn illegal online.

淨化互聯網，有效地使色情等不雅物品在網上違法。

-And so he proposed an amendment to the Telecommunications Act called

-所以他對《電信法》提出了一個修正案，叫做：

the Decency Act, the Communications Decency Act.

《廉潔法》、《通信廉潔法》；

But two members of Congress, Christopher Cox and Ron Wyden, thought that companies would

但兩位國會議員克里斯托弗-考克斯和羅恩-懷登認為，公司將。

do a better job cleaning the Internet up themselves. There was just one big legal problem.

自己做好互聯網的清理工作。只是有一個很大的法律問題。

-There were court cases that perversely made, uh, Internet, uh, providers liable if they

-有一些法院的案件，反常地規定，呃，互聯網，呃，供應商要承擔責任，如果他們。

tried to exercise editorial discretion, keep, uh, smut off the Internet, and so on.

試圖行使編輯自由裁量權，保持，呃，淫穢的互聯網，等等。

At the time, courts held that Internet providers like Prodigy, which moderated some user content,

當時，法院認為，像Prodigy這樣的互聯網提供商，對一些用戶內容進行了緩和。

were potentially liable for anything their users posted. So the companies faced a choice:

對其用戶發佈的任何內容都有潛在的責任。是以，這些公司面臨選擇。

clean up their websites and risk getting sued, or go totally hands off and face no legal consequences.

清理自己的網站，冒著被起訴的風險，或者完全放手，不承擔任何法律後果。

Cox and Wyden didn't like that.

考克斯和威登不喜歡這樣。

-That is backwards. We want to encourage people like Prodigy, like Compuserve, like America

-這是落後的。我們要鼓勵像Prodigy，像Compuserve，像美國這樣的人。

Online, like the new Microsoft Network to do everything possible for us the customer

在網上，像新微軟網絡一樣為我們客戶做一切可能的事情。

to help us control what comes in and what our children see.

來幫助我們控制進入的東西和我們的孩子看到的東西。

So Cox and Wyden wrote a provision, Section 230, that let companies moderate content without

所以考克斯和懷登寫了一個條款，即第230條，讓公司在不對內容進行節制的情況下

being on the legal hook for it. Their hope was that Internet companies would, in good

正在為此承擔法律責任。他們希望互聯網公司能夠在良好的情況下，將互聯網公司的產品和服務推向市場。

faith, police objectionable content on the Web.

信，對網絡上的不良內容進行治安。

We came to call it the sword and the shield. And the sword is the ability to take down

我們來稱它為劍和盾。而劍就是能夠打倒

horrible stuff on the Internet. The shield is the protection from frivolous litigation.

可怕的東西在互聯網上。盾牌是防止輕率訴訟的保護。

Section 230 was added to Senator Exon's Communications Decency Act, and the whole

埃克森參議員的《通信正直法》中增加了第230條，整個。

thing passed in 1996. But then Exon's porn ban ran into one big wall: the First Amendment.

事情在1996年通過。但後來艾克森的色情禁令遇到了一堵大牆：第一修正案。

Free speech advocates are hailing a ruling: the U.S. government cannot enforce the Communications Decency Act without violating the constitutional right to free speech.

言論自由的倡導者們正在歡呼一項裁決：美國政府不能在不侵犯憲法規定的言論自由權的情況下執行《通信正派法》。

-You, you probably guessed that because, uh, there's — Spoiler alert,

-你，你可能猜到了，因為，呃，有... ... 擾亂警報。

there's porn on the Internet.”

互聯網上有色情。"

But the courts let Section 230 stand. And that little law created a massive industry.

但法院讓第230條成立。這條小小的法律創造了一個龐大的產業。

-So, you think about Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, even Wikipedia. None of these business models

-所以，你想想Facebook、Twitter、YouTube，甚至維基百科。這些商業模式都不是

could exist in their current forms if the platforms had to defend in court the veracity

如果平臺必須在法庭上為其真實性辯護，那麼其目前的形式可能存在。

of every single thing that people post.

的每一件事，人們發。

The story of Section 230 is the story of the Internet: more and more people posting what

第230條的故事就是互聯網的故事：越來越多的人在網上發佈什麼。

they want online, and websites not getting sued for it because of their legal shield.

他們想在網上，而網站因為有了法律的保護，不會是以而被起訴。

The dark side of that story started pretty early: in 1995, when an anonymous user on

這個故事的黑暗面很早就開始了：1995年，一位匿名用戶在

AOL impersonated a man named Kenneth Zeran and used his name and phone number to sell

AOL冒充一個叫Kenneth Zeran的人，用他的名字和電話號碼來銷售。

T-shirts glorifying the Oklahoma City bombing.

頌揚俄克拉荷馬城爆炸案的T恤衫。

-At the time, it was a fairly novel approach of, really, ruining someone's life.

-在當時，這是一個相當新穎的方法，真的，毀掉一個人的生活。

After receiving a tsunami of threatening phone calls, Zeran begged AOL to take down the anonymous

在接到海嘯般的威脅電話後，澤蘭懇求AOL下架匿名。

user's ads.

用戶的廣告。

-They, for a while, would take them down. But then they stopped listening to him. He

-他們有一陣子會把他們打倒。但後來他們不再聽他的了。他...

was annoying. They just moved on.

是煩人的。他們只是繼續前進。

Zeran sued AOL in 1996. But the court said Section 230 allowed AOL to leave up the posts

Zeran在1996年起訴了AOL。但法院表示，第230條允許AOL留下帖子

even after Zeran reported them. AOL got to use Section 230's shield, in other words,

即使在澤蘭舉報他們之後。換句話說，AOL得用第230條的盾牌。

without ever having to touch its sword.

而不必去碰它的劍。

-It becomes, effectively, the law of the land. You could keep up the content no matter how

-它實際上成了國家的法律。你可以跟上內容，無論

horrific, how defamatory it is, and you are not going to be liable for it.

可怕，這是多麼大的誹謗，你是不會為此承擔責任的。

Carrie Goldberg is a lawyer who says the broad immunity Section 230's shield gives Internet

卡莉-戈德堡是一名律師，她說，第230條的屏蔽給了互聯網的廣泛豁免權。

companies has made some of them lazy and irresponsible.

公司使一些人變得懶惰和不負責任。

-Section 230 is not a law that protects free speech. Section 230 is a law that protects

-第230條不是保護言論自由的法律。第230條是保護

an industry.

一個行業。

Four years ago, her client, Matthew Herrick, was impersonated by a vengeful ex-boyfriend

四年前，她的委託人Matthew Herrick 被一個復仇的前男友冒名頂替

on the dating app, Grindr.

在約會應用Grindr上。

-He would create profiles using Matthew's picture and his name and then send unwitting

-他用Matthew的照片和他的名字建立檔案，然後向不知情的人發送

people to Matthew's home and to his job to have sex with Matthew.

人到馬修的家裡，到他的工作崗位與馬修發生性關係。

-Matthew Herrick says for months he couldn't go to the restaurants where he waited tables,

馬修-赫瑞克說，幾個月來，他不能去他當服務員的餐館。

or his home, without men he didn't know approaching him for sex or drugs.

或他的家，沒有男人他不知道接近他的性或藥物。

-Matthew was receiving sometimes 23 people in person at his home. And often, Matthew's

-馬修有時在家中親自接待23人。而且，馬修的

ex would say that Matthew was into rape fantasies. So he was setting Matthew up to be sexually

前夫會說馬修有強姦的幻想。所以他是在陷害Matthew，讓他在性生活上

assaulted.

毆打。

-Herrick said he filed 50 reports with Grindr and the company never did anything.

-Herrick說他向Grindr公司提交了50份報告，但該公司從未做任何事情。

-We were suing them ultimately for, uh, releasing a dangerous product onto the marketplace.

-我們最終起訴他們，呃，向市場投放危險產品。

But the court said that, just like in the Zeran-AOL case, Grindr didn't have to help Herrick.

但法院表示，就像在Zeran-AOL案中一樣，Grindr沒有必要幫助Herrick。

It was, in my opinion, the most expansive and extravagant interpretation of Section 230 to date.

我認為，這是對第230條迄今為止最寬泛、最奢侈的解釋。

Goldberg thinks that Section 230 should be changed or revoked so people like Herrick

戈德堡認為應該修改或撤銷第230條，這樣像赫裡克這樣的人

could sue for Internet companies' negligence.

可以起訴互聯網公司的過失。

Everybody should have the right to be able to sue somebody or a company who has harmed you

每個人都應該有權利能夠起訴傷害你的人或公司。

or is continuing to harm you. And so I see this not as a speech issue, but an access

或正在繼續傷害你。所以我認為這不是一個言論的問題， 而是一個訪問的問題

to justice issue.

司法問題。

You know, why do these harms happen? It's a combination of the perpetrator and the platform.

你知道，為什麼會發生這些傷害嗎？這是由肇事者和平臺共同造成的。

Site operators should only enjoy immunity from liability if they're engaged in reasonable

網站經營者只有在合理的情況下，才應享有責任豁免權。

content moderation practices. Right, there here has to be an exchange, like, you get

內容節制的做法。對，這裡必須有一個交流，就像，你得到了

the legal shield, but you've got to do something.

法律的盾牌，但你必須做一些事情。

Today, Section 230 has helped create an Internet industry worth more than a trillion dollars.

今天，第230節已經幫助創造了一個價值超過一萬億美元的互聯網產業。

Section 230 is how these companies have gotten big, it's how they've gotten powerful,

第230節這些公司就是這樣做大的，就是這樣做強的。

it's how they've gotten rich.

這就是他們致富的方式。

And agreeing on what it would mean for these companies to use Section 230's sword and

並同意這些公司使用第230條的刀劍，意味著什麼？

shield responsibly has gotten harder. It depends on what you think the problem is. Democrats

盾牌負責任地變得更難了。這取決於你認為問題是什麼。民主黨人

want companies like Facebook to do more policing of disinformation.

希望像Facebook這樣的公司對虛假資訊進行更多的監管。

Because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to

因為它不僅僅是一家互聯網公司。它是在宣傳他們明知故犯的假話。

be false

作假

But some Republicans claim there's a different problem: censorship of conservative views.

但一些共和黨人聲稱有一個不同的問題：對保守派觀點的審查。

And they want to change or scrap Section 230 to make Internet companies do less policing.

而他們希望改變或取消第230條，讓互聯網公司少做一些治安工作。

The Big Tech oligarchs have declared war on the Republican Party and conservatives.

大科技寡頭們已經向共和黨和保守派宣戰。

I think it's time that we consider the outright repeal of Section 230.

我認為現在是時候考慮徹底廢除第230條了。

Tweaking Section 230 might help individual victims of abuse like Matthew Herrick, and

修改第230條可能會幫助像Matthew Herrick這樣的個別受虐者，以及。

it could make Internet companies more accountable for the way they moderate content. But defenders

它可以使互聯網公司對其管理內容的方式承擔更多責任。但維護者

of the law say that changing it too much could undermine people's freedom to post what

的人說，修改太多，可能會破壞人們發佈資訊的自由。

they want online.

他們想在網上。

What I think we need are changes that are very carefully tailored and that address a

我認為，我們需要的是非常有針對性的改革，解決的是

particular harm and that also consider, how do we address this harm without just sort

傷害，同時也考慮到，我們如何處理這種傷害，而不只是排序。

of, um, causing total chaos to the existing Internet that we know?

的，嗯，造成全面混亂 現有的互聯網，我們知道嗎？