There is Only One Solution: Section 230 Demolition

Wikipedia must be sued to stop antisemitic atrocities like this

For the greater part of the year, this blog has been documenting Wikipedia's pro-Hamas bias. One question that we frequently get is simple: "What can I do about it?"

The answer, unfortunately, has been "Not much." Early on, we published a guide on how to navigate Wikipedia's contradictory rules. But Wikipedia regulars and "power users" are hostile to new editors, and it's easy to get blocked even if you follow the rules.

Wikipedia acts as if it is responsible to no one, and even its top body, its "Arbitration Committee," wields enormous power without accountability. It can't be sued if Wikipedia acts as an outlet for Hamas propaganda, allowing antisemitism and anti-Israel extremism to infect its thousands of articles on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. 

The reason for this is an outcome liability shield called Section 230.

Fortunately, the new Trump Administration has pointed the way toward a solution. According to the New York Post, Trump's new Federal Communications Committee chairman Brendan is weighing steps to curb Section 230:

Congress passed the Section 230 provision as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 — essentially giving tech a pass for third-party postings on their platforms.

The thinking was that lawsuits over defamation, etc., created by third parties could cripple innovation in the new ­economy.

Plus, unlike traditional media, they’re simply ­unbiased conduits of information.

They don’t operate as a traditional publisher by hosting a message board, chat room and should not accept the liability that goes along with it.

But Carr, my sources say, believes the world has changed dramatically since the early days of the Internet.

Social media has replaced chat rooms.

The operators of these sites make all sorts of editorial decisions.

 That certainly applies to Wikipedia, which is specifically cited in the article:  "Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, publishes consequence-free stuff based on the mostly progressive political views of the volunteers who supply its content, critics allege."

It's not clear what Carr can do to force Wikipedia to be forced to take responsibility for its content. Post columnist and Fox News reporter Charles Gasparino says as follows:

How he gets there is the great unknown among telecom lawyers I spoke to.

The FCC — with a new GOP majority led by Carr — is the top regulator of media, new and old.

It has the legal authority to interpret Section 230, and change the prior guidance that has given those expansive protections to Big Tech.

He can weaken or eliminate the shield by issuing a so-called advisory opinion.

Then it’s up to the courts to decide if they should use his guidance when they weigh Section 230 cases.

There’s a good chance many will, particularly in litigation before conservative judges.

That means defamation cases against Big Tech that have been dismissed in the past on summary judgments could have “standing” in the courts and move toward discovery depending on how a judge interprets the FCC edict.

Tech firms could settle rather than fight because litigation is never cheap.

So watch this space. Focus on this. Wikipedia must be defunded. It must also be sued. Legal and financial pressure are the only solution to the takeover of Wikipedia by pro-Hamas operatives.

Wikipedia's 'Arbitrators' Prove There Are No Adults in the Room—Only Kangaroos

Wikipedia's kangaroo court points up the need for Section 230 reform

As I've mentioned in several posts, Wikipedia's highest tribunal, its "Arbitration Committee," has been grappling with the "Palestine-Israel" topic area since August. Over the past two weeks, they finally cranked out a tentative decision.

The proceedings are still underway, and there is still potential for mischief. But it's been mostly decided, and the great Aaron Bandler has done a thorough job of summarizing its "actions" in Jewish Journal. 

As Aaron explains, the anti-Israel editors Iskandar323, Levivich, Nableezy, Selfstudier, Makeandtoss, and Nishidani were topic-banned, which can and will be appealed after one year. Zero0000, an administrator, was "warned." Two pro-Israel editors,  AndreJustAndre and BilledMammal, were also topic banned.

My takeaways:

• While there was much whining by the affected anti-Israel editors, this was a net win for the Wikipedia Flood. They far outnumber editors willing to oppose them. Six topic bans barely dent their ranks, while two of the most active editors seeking to restore balance to articles were topic banned, and one faces a possible site ban as described below. 

• Arbcom ignored some of the very worst anti-Israel editors, such as the rape-denier Huldra and the silky Sean.hoyland, valued by the "Flood" for cranking out meaningless "data" to "prove" that Wikipedia is awash with pro-Israel "sockpuppets."

• Only one pro-Hamas editor was banned, Ïvana. That took place before the proceedings began and was caused by her role in an offsite pro-Hamas effort to slant editing on Wikipedia. Exposure by this blog and Ashley Rindsberg in Pirate Wires made that impossible to ignore. 

• At this writing it appears that the most active pro-Israel editor in the case, "AndreJustAndre," may be banned from the site based on trumped-up misconduct allegations by anti-Israel editors. None of the topic-banned pro-Hamas editors face that punishment.

• 

  Meet 'CaptainEek'

  The arb who drafted the preliminary decision, "CaptainEek," didn't even pretend to read the evidence and "workshop" analysis. Her laziness was so blatant that she was derided on Wikipediocracy, a criticism site that pays close attention to arbcom. One regular sneered, "With CaptainEek at the helm, the Titanic would never have hit an iceberg. It wouldn't have made it out of port." 

• CaptainEek claimed in her decision draft that AndreJustAndre made "specific edits after an off-wiki blogger requested those edits be made." That, she later clarified, referred to this blog. That contention was so utterly bonkers—even a casual reader knows that I don't "request" edits—that it was rejected by the other arbs. 

• While they did not adopt Captain Eek's wildest claims, most arbs were almost as irresponsible and lazy as she was. The panel's arbitrary decision-making was harshly criticized by other editors in the "talk" page of the proposed decision. On Wikipediocracy, a user pointed to "multiple editors calling out arbcom for conclusions based on incorrect ‘facts,’" and added "They didn’t read the evidence. They just want to be done."

In short, arbcom showed outright favoritism toward pro-Hamas editors by their selective and skewed enforcement of the rules, and proved itself to be a classic "kangaroo court." 

That's not hyperbole. Arbcom fits the dictionary definition of "a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures."

The very fact that I have to refer to a member of Wikipedia's highest tribunal by their juvenile handle shows how utterly broken Wikipedia is. Most arbs, CaptainEek among them, conceal their identities in star-chamber fashion despite the immense power they wield on the site.

 

What these anonymous Wiki-jurists proved in this case is that Wikipedia's highest tribunal is both unwilling and unable to curb highly organized propagandists who infiltrate the site to push pro-Hamas and antisemitic propaganda. 

Their actions prove that they are unserious. The goofy pictures they post of themselves, like the ones CaptainEek posts on her personal Wikipedia page (above) just gild the lily.

And since arbcom is an outright kangaroo court that disregards evidence and behaves without accountability, it is actually an obstacle to improving the site. How can editors oppose the pro-Hamas operatives if they believe arbcom will come swooping down and kick them out without a valid reason?  

Wikipedia's editor-oversight panel is allowed to fester like this for a reason. 

The highly compensated executives of the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns the servers, take no responsibility for Wikipedia content because of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. 

The Congressional Research Service says that Section 230

generally precludes providers and users from being held liable—that is, legally responsible—for information provided by another person, but does not prevent them from being held legally responsible for information that they have developed or for activities unrelated to third-party content. Courts have interpreted Section 230 to foreclose a wide variety of lawsuits and to preempt laws that would make providers and users liable for third-party content. For example, the law has been applied to protect online service providers like social media companies from lawsuits based on their decisions to transmit or take down user-generated content.

There's a need for that law and it shouldn't be repealed. It protects innocuous websites from unwarranted legal attack. But it can function as a recipe for lack of accountability, and that is not acceptable. 

Section 230 should not apply to Wikipedia.