In simple terms, it's the law that protects services if a user posts something illegal.

簡單來說，就是如果用戶發佈了違法的東西，法律就會保護服務。

But as these services have become bigger and more controversial, people are more seriously calling for the law to change.

但隨著這些服務的規模越來越大，爭議也越來越多，人們更認真地呼籲改變法律。

If you have any kind of problem with Facebook or YouTube, somebody's probably proposed fixing it by changing Section 2 30.

如果你對Facebook或YouTube有任何問題，可能有人提議通過修改第2條30款來解決。

And as pressure in Congress builds, those fixes could have huge consequences for the rest of the Internet.

而隨著國會壓力的增大，這些修復措施可能會對互聯網的其他方面產生巨大的影響。

When 2 30 is created, it's created by people newly creating this nascent Internet.

當2 30被創造出來的時候，是人們新創造這個新生的互聯網。

Our laws shouldn't remain stagnant as they were 25 years ago.

我們的法律不應該像25年前那樣停滯不前。

It doesn't mean we get rid of them.

這並不意味著我們要擺脫他們。

It means we change them.

這意味著我們要改變他們。

So let's talk about how we got here.

那麼，讓我們來談談我們是如何來到這裡的。

In the mid nineties, a lot of the Internet was message boards, some tiny and independent others on bigger services like Compuserve, Prodigy and AOL.

在九十年代中期，很多互聯網都是留言板，有些是很小的獨立留言板，有些則是在Compuserve、Prodigy和AOL等較大的服務上。

And when a user posted something libellous or otherwise illegal, a couple of court rulings effectively punished companies for moderating content.

而當用戶發佈一些誹謗或其他違法的內容時，法院的幾項判決有效地懲罰了公司對內容的管理。

They basically said that if a site took down some posts, it could become legally responsible for other posts while just letting a service run wild could keep companies out of trouble.

他們基本上說，如果一個網站刪除了一些帖子，它可能會成為其他帖子的法律責任，而只是讓服務瘋狂地運行，可以讓公司擺脫麻煩。

Lawmakers thought this was a bad idea.

立法者認為這是個壞主意。

So when they passed the Communications Decency Act in 1996 they included Section 2 30 to settle the question.

所以，當他們在1996年通過《通信正派法》時，他們加入了第2 30條來解決這個問題。

The first part says that interactive computer services, apps, websites, newspaper comment sections, AOL and so on can't be legally treated as the publisher of their users posts.

第一部分說，交互式電腦服務、應用程序、網站、報紙評論區、AOL等不能作為其用戶帖子的發佈者進行法律處理。

The second part says, you can't sue a platform for good faith moderation efforts.

第二部分說的是，你不能因為善意的版主工作而起訴平臺。

Overall, the point is simple.

總的來說，道理很簡單。

When a site or APP accepts user generated content, it typically doesn't accept liability for that content, no matter how it moderates.

當一個網站或APP接受用戶產生的內容時，無論它如何版主，它通常都不承擔這些內容的責任。

A lot of conservative politicians have gotten this wrong, claiming there are separately regulated categories of platforms and publishers, and that moderation makes you a publisher with more legal liability.

很多保守的政客都搞錯了這個問題，聲稱平臺和發佈者是有單獨的監管類別的，節制讓你成為發佈者，就要承擔更多的法律責任。

In reality, Section 2 30 was literally written, so this wouldn't happen.

在現實中，第2 30節是字面意思，所以不會發生這種情況。

So some of these same politicians have tried to roll back or abolish Section 2 30 to change this, trying to make it tougher for sites to suspend users like former President Donald Trump.

是以，這些政客中的一些人試圖回滾或廢除第2 30節來改變這種情況，試圖讓網站更艱難地暫停用戶，如前總統唐納德特朗普。

As you know, I have long been concerned about Twitter's pattern of censoring and silencing individual Americans.

如你所知，我長期以來一直關注Twitter對個別美國人的審查和沉默的模式。

Why do you block anything?

你為什麼要阻止什麼？

Well, we have policies that are focused on making sure that more voices on the platform are possible.

好吧，我們有政策，重點是確保平臺上有更多的聲音。

We see a lot of abuse and harassment, which ends up silencing people and something on leave from the.

我們看到了很多的謾罵和騷擾，最後讓人沉默，有些東西在休假從。

But now the First Amendment also says companies probably don't have to publish speech they don't like, including Trump posts.

但現在第一修正案也說，公司可能不必發佈他們不喜歡的言論，包括特朗普的帖子。

But Section 2 30 makes it easier to fight a potentially expensive lawsuit.

但是，第2 30條使打一場可能昂貴的官司變得更加容易。

When Democrats like current President Joe Biden, talk about abolishing Section 2 30 though, they're usually referring to a more complicated problem.

不過當民主黨人，比如現任總統喬-拜登，談論廢除第230條時，他們通常指的是一個更復雜的問題。

If somebody slanders you in a YouTube video or criminally harasses you on Facebook, Section 2 30 says you should sue or prosecute the original offender, not the platform that hosts them, but on an Internet with billions of users, Patrol mobs and automated systems can spread this content really fast and going after each user is almost impossible.

如果有人在YouTube視頻中誹謗你，或者在Facebook上對你進行刑事騷擾，第2 30條規定，你應該起訴或起訴原犯，而不是承載他們的平臺，但在一個擁有數十億用戶的互聯網上，巡邏暴徒和自動系統可以快速傳播這些內容，去追捕每個用戶幾乎是不可能的。

Lots of Democrats and some Republicans, one sites to take a more active role in policing illegal content, and they think that right now, Section 2 30 lets companies escape responsibility.

很多民主黨人和一些共和黨人，一個網站在監管非法內容方面發揮更積極的作用，他們認為，現在，第2 30條讓公司逃避責任。

I just think that social media has to be more socially conscious of what is important in terms of our democracy.

我只是覺得，社會媒體要有更多的社會意識，對我們的民主有什麼重要的意義。

I, for one, think we should be considering taking away the exemption that they cannot be sued for, knowingly engaged on promoting something that's not true, trusting that they will be regulated into actually caring about the problems of haste.

我則認為應該考慮取消他們不能被起訴的豁免權，明知故犯地從事一些不真實的宣傳，相信他們會被監管到真正關心匆忙的問題。

Feast is, in my opinion, a very silly wicked if you're going to do it By 2 30 the Internet issues are way bigger than Section 2 30.

宴在我看來，如果你要做的話，是一個非常愚蠢的惡人 到2 30互聯網問題比2 30節大得多。

To explore them, the Verge held a panel discussion with the general counsels of the Wicked Media Foundation and Video, as well as writer and researchers.

為了探討這些問題，The Verge與Wicked Media Foundation和Video的總顧問以及作家和研究人員進行了小組討論。

Today, Harry, they leave out the complex problems that any legal reform would have to deal with and the potential impact of getting it wrong.

今天，哈里，他們忽略了任何法律改革所要處理的複雜問題，以及弄錯的潛在影響。

No amount of Section 2 30 performs going to fix the fact that the First Amendment also protects a lot of speech online.

沒有多少第2 30節執行去解決的事實，第一修正案也保護了很多網上的言論。

Even if you took away Section 2 30 today, you're still not going to be able to sue platforms for misinformation about the election.

就算今天把二三十條取消了，也不能告平臺對選舉的錯誤信息。

Misinformation about vaccines, you know, things that are hateful to minority groups.

關於疫苗的錯誤信息，你知道，那些對少數群體有仇恨的東西。

But if you look at the people who actually do sue for things like defamation.

但如果你看看那些真正起訴誹謗等事情的人。

It's generally the people in power.

一般是當權者。

It's not the people out of power.

不是人民失勢。

And so, by removing Section 2 30 protections, do you privilege those people over people who can't afford a lawyer and we'll never see you anyway?

那麼，通過取消第230條的保護措施，你是否讓這些人享有特權，而不是那些請不起律師的人，反正我們也不會見你？

I think you probably do.

我想你可能會這樣做。

It just becomes a billion dollar tech companies throwing money around the silence, whoever is going to be a problem and no matter what, if it goes to money in law, the people will lose, and that is the worst possible outcome.

這就變成了十億美金的科技公司一擲千金的沉默，誰要出問題，不管怎麼樣，如果到了法律上的錢，老百姓都會輸，這是最壞的結果。

These issues go way beyond quote unquote big tech.

這些問題遠遠超出了引用不引用大科技的範圍。

There are smaller sites that basically exists just to promote harassment, nonconsensual pornography and other criminal behavior.

有一些小的網站，基本上只是為了宣揚騷擾、非自願色情和其他犯罪行為而存在。

And right now, Section 2 30 protects them along with every other side on the Internet.

而現在，第2 30條保護了他們和互聯網上的其他各方。

But a lot of companies, nonprofits and ordinary people are just trying to run a site or app in good faith and changing Section 2 30 could catch them in the crossfire.

但很多公司、非營利組織和普通人只是想真誠地營運一個網站或應用，改變第2 30條可能會讓他們陷入困境。

Are you going to create a situation where you need a so called army of moderators to deal with the problem?

難道你要製造一個需要所謂的版主大軍來處理問題的局面？

Because, if so, you risk entrenching the large players like Facebook and others because they already do have virtually unlimited resources and can deal with the issue.

因為，如果是這樣，你就有可能鞏固Facebook等大玩家的地位，因為他們已經確實擁有幾乎無限的資源，可以處理這個問題。

So far, Congress has introduced some potential changes, and they basically fall into two categories.

到目前為止，國會已經提出了一些潛在的變化，它們基本上分為兩類。

The first is making sites earn Section 2 30 protections.

首先是讓網站賺取第2條30條的保護。

The Pact Act, for instance, says that sites need to publish a clear moderation policy.

例如，《契約法》規定，網站需要公佈明確的版規政策。

They need to remove illegal content within 24 hours of hearing about it, and they need to staff a phone helpline with actual human beings.

他們需要在聽到非法內容後的24小時內將其刪除，並且需要配備一個真正的人類的電話幫助熱線。

The pack pack also includes a small site exemption so it could theoretically have a smaller impact on the Internet.

包包還包括小網站豁免，所以理論上可以對互聯網的影響較小。

The second category is limiting what kind of content section 2 30 covers.

第二類是限制第2 30節涵蓋什麼樣的內容。

That's the goal of the new safe Tech Act, which as liability for a bunch of different offending content, including harassment and wrongful death.

這就是新的安全技術法的目標，作為責任的一堆不同的違法內容，包括騷擾和錯誤的死亡。

But when Congress has limited protections before, it's often accidentally created more problems.

但當國會之前限制保護措施時，往往會不小心製造出更多的問題。

I really worry about the kind of abuse.

我真的很擔心那種虐待。

If there was overly broad restrictions on people's ability to host what is actually knowledge, I would want to make sure that any intervention was narrowly and specifically tailored without creating some of the kind of unintended consequences for real people that have made real people less safe.

如果對人們承載實際知識的能力進行過於寬泛的限制，我希望確保任何干預都是狹隘的、有針對性的，而不會給現實中的人造成一些意外的後果，使現實中的人不那麼安全。

Section 2 30 doesn't cover copyright infringement, for instance, so sites have created takedown systems and automated filters to catch Pirated content.

例如，第2 30條並不包括版權侵權，所以網站已經建立了移除系統和自動過濾器來捕捉盜版內容。

But trolls abuse these systems to censor users, and the flagging systems make a lot of mistakes.

但巨魔濫用這些系統來審查用戶，而標誌系統也會犯很多錯誤。

And that is the crux of this.

這就是問題的關鍵所在。

Is that the same things that protects us?

這也是保護我們的東西嗎？

The same things that enable harm against us are intertwined, and that is what we're teasing out.

同樣的東西，能夠對我們造成傷害的東西是交織在一起的，這就是我們要戲弄的東西。

And I am not comfortable with any discussion that pretends we will solve the problems of people or solve the problems of democracy.

我不喜歡任何假裝我們會解決人民問題或解決民主問題的討論。

With a large opening one size fits all discussion, Section 2 30 often gets looked at as the only tool in the toolbox.

在大開大合的討論中，第2節30往往被看成是工具箱中唯一的工具。

If privacy is our concern, we should focus on privacy laws.

如果我們關注的是隱私，我們應該關注隱私法。

If it's data security, we should focus on data security laws.

如果是數據安全，我們應該關注數據安全法。

I worry about locking in sort of the technology of 2021.

我擔心鎖定排序為2021年的技術。

Frankly, don't think we're we've got it right.

坦率地說，我們不認為我們已經得到了它的權利。

The Internet has real problems, and since section 2 30 helped create the Internet as we know it, you can blame it for some of them.

互聯網確實存在問題，既然第2 30節幫助創造了我們所知道的互聯網，你可以責怪它的一些問題。

But Section 2 30 also helped create a lot of what we love about the Internet.

但第2 30節也幫助我們創造了很多我們對互聯網的熱愛。

So as lawmakers try to change it, the real question is whether good intentions will translate into good results.

是以，當立法者試圖改變它時，真正的問題是良好的意圖是否會轉化為良好的結果。

I ordered some potatoes.

我點了一些洋芋。

This is my fault, not the online company.

這是我的錯，不是網絡公司的錯。

This is what I received three potatoes of this size.

這是我收到的三個洋芋的大小。

These kinds of things have happened to me.

這種事情在我身上也發生過。

Often I take the blame.

常常是我背鍋。

We know that the virtues of technology has helped us very much get through this pandemic.

我們知道，科技的功德幫助我們非常順利地度過了這次流行病。

But at the same time, there's so much we need to fix.

但同時，我們需要解決的問題也太多了。