An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hollywood Reporter: Providing relief via direct assistance and loans to struggling individuals and businesses hit hard by COVID-19 has been a priority for federal lawmakers this past month. But a gigantic spending bill has also become the opportunity to smuggle in some other line items including those of special interest to the entertainment community. Perhaps most surprising, according to the text of the bill being circulated, illegal streaming for commercial profit could become a felony.

It's been less than two weeks since Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) released his proposal to increase the penalties for those who would dare stream unlicensed works. In doing so, the North Carolina senator flirted with danger. About a decade ago, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar made a similar proposal before it ended up dying as people worried about sending Justin Bieber to jail. This time, Tillis' attempt was winning better reviews for more narrowly tailoring the provisions toward commercial operators rather than users. That said, it's had very little time to circulate before evidently becoming part of the spending package. If passed, illegal streaming of works including movies and musical works could carry up to 10 years in jail. That's not the only copyright change either.

The spending bill also appears to adopt a long-discussed plan to create a small claims adjudication system within the U.S. Copyright Office. [...] Among the other parts of the omnibus bill of interest to Hollywood is an extension of Section 181, a tax provision that allows for immediate deduction of television and film production costs up to $15 million. That incentive was scheduled to expire at the end of the year, but would now get an additional five years.

The U.S. Senate voted Tuesday by a 49 to 47 vote to advance the nomination of a senior Trump administration official who has helped lead an effort seeking social media regulations to a seat on the Federal Communications Commission. From a report: The Senate is set to vote later on the nomination of Nathan Simington, a Commerce Department official, after U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly urged lawmakers to take action. If Simington is confirmed, the FCC could initially be deadlocked 2-2 between Democrats and Republicans when Democratic President-elect Joe Biden takes office next month.

The American Civil Liberties Union is suing federal authorities over their alleged use of cellphone location data -- particularly in immigration enforcement. From a report: The nonprofit organization today filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to force the agencies to release records about purchasing cellphone location data for immigration enforcement and other purposes. The lawsuit follows multiple news reports earlier this year about the Trump administration buying access to commercial databases that track cellphone locations and then using that data to detect people who might be entering the country illegally.

"It's critical we uncover how federal agencies are accessing bulk databases of Americans' location data and why," Nathan Freed Wessler, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a statement. "There can be no accountability without transparency." Senate Democrats, such as privacy advocate Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), had written a letter to DHS asking for more information on how such data was being used. On Wednesday morning, they disclosed that the department's inspector general would take up the matter.

Big Tech's legal woes are expected to worsen in the coming weeks as federal and state antitrust authorities prepare to file new lawsuits against Facebook and Alphabet's Google, WSJ reported Monday, citing people familiar with the matter. From the report: The authorities are readying as many as four more cases targeting Google or Facebook by the end of January, these people said, following the Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit against Google last month. Federal and state officials are probing whether the tech giants abused their power in the internet economy-- Google to dominate search and advertising, and Facebook to dominate social media. Google and Facebook have denied doing so, saying they operate in highly competitive markets and that their services, which are mostly free, benefit consumers. If Facebook were to be sued, it would mark the first government antitrust action against the social-media titan in the U.S. Facebook has come under particular criticism from Republicans and Democrats in Congress as well as President-elect Joe Biden over its content-moderation policies. Democrats generally contend the company has been too lax in policing misleading speech, while Republicans say Facebook has sometimes suppressed conservatives. Facebook has said it aims to support free speech while limiting hate speech and other harmful content.

Facebook's employees and executives "are battling over how to reduce misinformation and hate speech without hurting the company's bottom line," reports the New York Times, after employees had spotted false and misleading election-related misinformation going viral on the site.

The solution? Make temporary changes to the controversial algorithm "which helps determine what more than two billion people see every day" by highlighting "big, mainstream publishers like CNN, The New York Times and NPR, while posts from highly engaged hyperpartisan pages, such as Breitbart and Occupy Democrats, became less visible, the employees said."

The Wrap reports: Zuckerberg's decision came after Facebook employees, seeing President Trump claim the election was rigged against him, "proposed an emergency change" to make "authoritative news" more prominent. It's unclear how long the changes were in place for, but they appear to have ended. Facebook vice president Guy Rosen told the Times "there has never been a plan to make these permanent...."

Since making the changes a few weeks ago, some Facebook employees have pushed for the "nicer" News Feed to become permanent, the report added.
The New York Times argues the incident "illustrates a central tension that some inside Facebook are feeling acutely these days: that the company's aspirations of improving the world are often at odds with its desire for dominance....

"Even as Election Day and its aftermath have passed with few incidents, some disillusioned employees have quit, saying they could no longer stomach working for a company whose products they considered harmful."

President-elect Joe Biden's top technology adviser helped craft California's landmark online privacy law and recently condemned a controversial federal statute that protects internet companies from liability, indicators of how the Biden administration may come down on two key tech policy issues. From a report: Bruce Reed, a former Biden chief of staff who is expected to take a major role in the new administration, helped negotiate with the tech industry and legislators on behalf of backers of a ballot initiative that led to the 2018 California Consumer Privacy Act. Privacy advocates see that law as a possible model for a national law. Reed also co-authored a chapter in a book published last month denouncing the federal law known as Section 230, which makes it impossible to sue internet companies over the content of user postings. Both Republicans and Democrats have called for reforming or abolishing 230, which critics say has allowed abuse to flourish on social media. Reed, a veteran political operative, was chief of staff for Biden from 2011 to 2013, when Biden was U.S. vice president. In that role, he succeeded Ron Klain, who was recently named incoming White House chief of staff. Reed then served as president of the Broad Foundation, a major Los Angeles philanthropic organization, and later as an adviser to Laurene Powell Jobs' Emerson Collective in Palo Alto, California.

Facebook's ban on political ads, which was initially projected to last just one week, is being extended for at least another month. The decision is aimed at limiting the misinformation that's spreading rampantly over its platform in the wake of the U.S. election. The Guardian reports: "We are keeping the ad pause and other temporary election protection measures in place as that result moves towards certification next month," said Rob Leathern, director of product management at Facebook. "We are keeping the ad pause and other temporary election protection measures in place as that result moves towards certification next month," said Rob Leathern, director of product management at Facebook. "We know that people are disappointed that we can't immediately enable ads for runoff elections in Georgia and elsewhere," Leathern added. "It's taken years to build the infrastructure that supports the Facebook Ad Library and ensure that political ads are transparent. We do not have the technical ability in the short term to enable political ads by state or by advertiser, and we are also committed to giving political advertisers equal access to our tools and services."

With political adverts banned across the US, neither Democrats nor Republicans can take advantage of Facebook in their campaigns in Georgia, where both Senate seats are up for grabs on 5 January in a pair of runoff elections. According to Facebook's own research, the ban is likely to hurt Democrats slightly more, as the company says advertising on its site provides, on average, a proportional advantage to challengers against incumbents. Google is also continuing its political advertising ban, though it hasn't given a definite end date to the suspension.

Anonymouse Cowtard writes: When you're holding millions in bets on the favorite, you don't take the decision to payout lightly. Betting agencies are often good barometers for political polls, but Sportsbet has been stung before. They incorrectly paid out on bets for the Labor Party in Australia to win two days before the election was held, assuming a victory would come to the polling leaders. That party lost.

According to Bloomberg, "Sportsbet has decided to pay out early on Joe Biden to be elected as the U.S President even with the official result still not known, according to a statement. The online bookmaker has deemed Biden's lead as 'unassailable' after CNN projected Michigan would go to the Democrats and that he holds the ascendancy in Nevada and Arizona. Sportsbet has paid out over 100,000 bets to punters who backed Biden."

Uber, Lyft and other app-based ride-hailing and delivery services prevailed at the ballot box in their expensive gamble to keep drivers classified as independent contractors. From a report: The titans of the so-called gig economy bankrolled the most expensive ballot measure in California history to exempt drivers from being classified as company employees eligible for benefits and job protections. The measure had more than 58% of the nearly 11 million votes counted so far. Proposition 22 pitted the gig companies, including DoorDash, Postmates and Instacart, against labor unions. More than $225 million was spent -- the vast majority by the companies.

The ballot question overrides lawmakers and the courts to keep drivers independent and able to set their own hours. If the companies' had lost, it would have upended their business model and San Francisco-based Uber and Lyft had threatened to pull out of California. The landmark state labor law known known as AB5 threatened to upend the app-based businesses, which offers flexibility to drivers to work whenever they choose. But drivers forgo protections like minimum wage, overtime, health insurance and reimbursement for expenses. Labor-friendly Democrats in the Legislature passed the law last year to expand a 2018 ruling by the California Supreme Court that limited businesses from classifying certain workers as independent contractors.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The group of Russian hackers accused of meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election earlier this year targeted the email accounts of Democratic state parties in California and Indiana, and influential think tanks in Washington and New York, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The attempted intrusions, many of which were internally flagged by Microsoft Corp over the summer, were carried out by a group often nicknamed "Fancy Bear." The hackers' activity provides insight into how Russian intelligence is targeting the United States in the run-up to the Nov. 3 election. The targets identified by Reuters, which include the Center for American Progress, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said they had not seen any evidence of successful hacking attempts.

Fancy Bear is controlled by Russia's military intelligence agency and was responsible for hacking the email accounts of Hillary Clinton's staff in the run-up to the 2016 election, according to a Department of Justice indictment filed in 2018. News of the Russian hacking activity follows last month's announcement here by Microsoft that Fancy Bear had attempted to hack more than 200 organizations, many of which the software company said were tied to the 2020 election. Microsoft was able to link this year's cyber espionage campaign to the Russian hackers through an apparent programming error that allowed the company to identify a pattern of attack unique to Fancy Bear, according to a Microsoft assessment reviewed by Reuters. The thrust of espionage operations could not be determined by Reuters. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in August here that Russian operations were attempting to undermine the campaign of presidential candidate Joe Biden.

About half of Americans on both sides of the aisle back the Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit against Google, while fewer than a third oppose it, according to a new poll from progressive groups Demand Progress and Data for Progress shared exclusively with Axios. From a report: There's a growing pile of evidence that regulatory action against Big Tech has bipartisan support, as state and federal antitrust action circles companies like Google and Facebook. While there are many party-line splits on tech policy issues like content moderation, privacy and misinformation, more policymakers and average Americans than ever agree tech is too big and powerful. Winning antitrust suits represents a massive lift for the government and passing new antitrust legislation is hard. In an online survey of 979 likely voters polled by Demand Progress and the Demand Progress Education Fund from October 24-25 (with a margin of error of +-3.1 percentage points), 48% said they strongly or somewhat support the DOJ's lawsuit. 32% strongly or somewhat oppose it. The numbers were fairly consistent across both parties, with 52% of Republicans supporting the suit, compared to 49% of Democrats. 26% of Republicans polled opposed it, while 32% of Democrats did.

Judd Legum, reporting at Popular Information: In September, Facebook announced that it would stop accepting new political ads starting October 27. From October 27 through Election Day on November 3, political groups are permitted to run, subject to limitations, Facebook ads approved and running before October 27. In October, Facebook announced that after the polls close, it would ban all political ads indefinitely. The purpose of that policy is to prevent a campaign from declaring victory prematurely. Both policies were part of a high-profile effort to convince the public that the company was taking election integrity seriously. But on the first day of the moratorium, Facebook approved numerous Trump ads that appeared to violate its pre-election policies. At the same time, Facebook rejected scores of ads, many from groups aligned with Democrats, that do not violate its rules. Popular Information contacted Facebook regarding Trump's ads early Tuesday afternoon. Several hours later, Facebook told Popular Information that some of the ads did violate its policies and hundreds of Trump's ads were taken down.

The Trump campaign produced a number of ads that said "Election Day is Today." These ads violate Facebook's policies. Why? In order to comply with the moratorium, the ads need to begin delivering impressions prior to October 27. The Trump campaign spent a small amount of money delivering these ads to Facebook users in Ohio and elsewhere. But, while early voting has started in many states, it is not Election Day anywhere. These ads should not have been approved because they violate Faceboo's policy against misrepresenting the date of the election.

"A movement known as 'right to repair' is starting to make progress in pushing for laws that prohibit restrictions..." reports the New York Times: This August, Democrats introduced a bill in Congress to block manufacturers' limits on medical devices, spurred by the pandemic. In Europe, the European Commission announced plans in March for new right-to-repair rules that would cover phones, tablets, and laptops by 2021. In less than two weeks, Massachusetts voters will consider a measure that would make it easier for local garages to work on cars. And in more than 20 statehouses nationwide, right-to-repair legislation has been introduced in recent years by both Republicans and Democrats. Over the summer, the House advanced a funding bill that includes a requirement that the FTC complete a report on anticompetitive practices in the repair market and present its findings to Congress and the public. And in a letter to the Federal Trade Commission, Marine Captain Elle Ekman and former Marine Lucas Kunce last year detailed how mechanics in the American armed forces have run into similar obstacles...

Manufacturers argue that their products are repairable, and that they are protecting consumers' safety, privacy and security by restricting who does the repairs. Apple, for instance, limits consumers from repairing their devices by requiring specific tools or authorized parts. "When a repair is needed, a customer should have confidence the repair is done right," Jeff Williams, Apple's chief operating officer, said in a release last year. "We believe the safest and most reliable repair is one handled by a trained technician using genuine parts that have been properly engineered and rigorously tested."

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to authorize subpoenas for Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to testify about their handling of a recent unverified New York Post article about former Vice President Joe Biden's son. From a report: Twelve Republicans on the committee voted to authorize the subpoenas and ten Democrats sat out the markup in a protest of the session's earlier vote on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Zuckerberg and Dorsey are already set to testify before the Senate Commerce Committee next week alongside Google CEO Sundar Pichai about alleged bias and privacy matters. The Judiciary Committee voted to compel the Facebook and Twitter CEOs to testify about their "suppression and/or censorship" of two recent New York Post articles involving unverified allegations about emails supposedly taken from a computer belonging to the Democratic presidential nominee's son, Hunter Biden. The initial story alleged the younger Biden attempted to introduce a top executive at a Ukraine company he worked for to his father while he was serving as VP. The Democratic nominee has called the story a "smear." Facebook and Twitter took very different approaches to moderating the article, which contained unredacted email addresses in documents included in the story.

Slashdot reader alternative_right shares a report from Politico: Justice Department and state prosecutors investigating Google for alleged antitrust violations are considering whether to force the company to sell its dominant Chrome browser and parts of its lucrative advertising business, three people with knowledge of the discussions said...

The conversations — amid preparations for an antitrust legal battle that the Department of Justice is expected to begin in the coming weeks — could pave the way for the first court-ordered break-up of a U.S. company in decades. The forced sales would also represent major setbacks for Google, which uses its control of the world's most popular web browser to aid the search engine that is the key to its fortunes.

Discussions about how to resolve Google's control over the $162.3 billion global market for digital advertising remain ongoing, and no final decisions have been made, the people cautioned, speaking anonymously to discuss confidential discussions. But prosecutors have asked advertising technology experts, industry rivals and media publishers for potential steps to weaken Google's grip... A major antitrust report that the House Judiciary Committee released this week found that Chrome's market share allows Google to "effectively set standards for the industry," an issue of particular relevance as Chrome phases out cookies. "Google's ad-based business model can prompt questions about whether the standards Google chooses to introduce are ultimately designed primarily to serve Google's interests," the House report said. "Market participants are concerned that while Google phases out third-party cookies needed by other digital advertising companies, Google can still rely on data collected throughout its ecosystem."
Friday Politico reported the antitrust suit against Google is likely to be filed "early next week, but without the sign-on of any Democratic attorneys general, four people familiar with the case said Friday — upending the Trump administration's hopes to enlist bipartisan support for its fight against the internet giant..."

Instead a bipartisan group of states "expects to file an antitrust complaint challenging Google's search practices at a later date, the people said. That group, led by Democratic attorneys general in Colorado and Iowa along with Nebraska's Republican attorney general, has expressed concern about what they view as the Justice Department's narrow approach to the case, the people said. Filing a separate suit would allow more leverage if the Department of Justice negotiates a settlement with Google they don't like, they said."

"Facing the prospect that President Trump could lose his re-election bid, his cabinet is scrambling to enact regulatory changes affecting millions of Americans in a blitz so rushed it may leave some changes vulnerable to court challenges," reports the New York Times: The effort is evident in a broad range of federal agencies and encompasses proposals like easing limits on how many hours some truckers can spend behind the wheel, giving the government more freedom to collect biometric data and setting federal standards for when workers can be classified as independent contractors rather than employees. In the bid to lock in new rules before Jan. 20, Mr. Trump's team is limiting or sidestepping requirements for public comment on some of the changes and swatting aside critics who say the administration has failed to carry out sufficiently rigorous analysis. Some cases, like a new rule to allow railroads to move highly flammable liquefied natural gas on freight trains, have led to warnings of public safety threats...

If Democrats take control of Congress, they will have the power to reconsider some of these last-minute regulations, through a law last used at the start of Mr. Trump's tenure by Republicans to repeal certain rules enacted at the end of the Obama administration. But the Trump administration is also working to fill key vacancies on scientific advisory boards with members who will hold their seats far into the next presidential term, committees that play an important role in shaping federal rule making...

The Homeland Security Department is also moving, again with an unusually short 30-day comment period, to adopt a rule that will allow it to collect much more extensive biometric data from individuals applying for citizenship, including voice, iris and facial recognition scans, instead of just the traditional fingerprint scan. The measure, which the agency said was needed to curb fraud, would also allow it for the first time to collect DNA or DNA test results to verify a relationship between an application for citizenship and someone already in the United States.

Microsoft co-founder and former CEO Bill Gates told CNBC on Wednesday morning he had been naive about the government scrutiny that comes with getting large when he was running Microsoft and said the chance of Big Tech antitrust regulation is "pretty high." CNBC reports: "Whenever you get to be a super-valuable company, affecting the way people communicate and even political discourse being mediated through your system and higher percentage of commerce -- through your system -- you're going to expect a lot of government attention," Gates said in the "Squawk Box" interview. Last week, the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust released a report concluding that Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google hold monopoly power.

"I was naive at Microsoft and didn't realize that our success would lead to government attention," Gates said, referring to Microsoft's antitrust challenges from more than 20 years ago. "And so I made some mistakes -- you know, just saying, 'Hey, I never go to Washington, D.C.' And now I don't think, you know, that naivete is there." Gates stepped down as Microsoft CEO in the middle of the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust case, which charged the company had tried to monopolize the web browser market when it bundled Internet Explorer with Windows. The company settled with the DOJ in 2001.

"The rules will change somewhat," Gates said in contrast about the possibility of future regulation. "I'd say the chances of them doing something is pretty high." "We have to get the particulars," said Gates when asked about the risk of additional regulation cutting down on innovation. "Is there some rule about acquisition? Is there some rule about splitting parts of the companies, either -- to create open availability of those resources?" Anti-competitive "killer acquisitions" was one of the House subcommittee's concerns, and the report looked into whether Facebook acquired Instagram to eliminate a competitor. Splitting up such acquisitions may be one possibility of future regulation. "We're in uncharted territory here," said Gates.

As Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google are being targeted by the House Judiciary Committee for abusing American antitrust law, one major company has managed to escape the glare: Microsoft. That's because they are now "the adult in the room in some ways on this issue," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.), a Democratic member of the House Antitrust subcommittee, which has been diving into Big Tech's practices for the last 16 months. Yahoo Finance reports: Jayapal's Seattle district includes Amazon's headquarters and the company's practices, specifically how it uses data from third-party sellers, has been one of her major focuses. It's Congress's job to make sure "a company like Amazon can't just put a small business that produces diapers out of business by taking all of that market information that nobody else has access to, and using it to subsidize losses and push small companies out," Jayapal told Yahoo Finance.

She has also had a less-than-cordial relationship with Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. During a Yahoo Finance interview this summer, Jayapal said she had never before met the billionaire. They did talk virtually in July when she grilled him during the hearings, but she said this week that communication since then has been sparse. "I've had an open door policy to speaking with Mr. Bezos and have invited him many times," she said. Though she has met with Amazon senior managers.

"The lesson here is self-regulation doesn't work," said Jayapal. She points to Microsoft as an example that Amazon should follow, of successfully working with the government. In 1998, Microsoft was the subject of Congressional antitrust inquiries and many wanted to break the company up. In the end, Bill Gates was able to avoid a breakup by promising to change his company's ways. The company had to "change its culture, change its lines of business," Jayapal said. The process of government involvement led to Microsoft creating a "platform for other small companies to thrive," she said. Jayapal also pointed to the Microsoft example as to why breaking up a company isn't always the best option. "Perhaps in retrospect, Amazon, after we've regulated them, after we've put through some of the recommendations that are in the report, we'll look back and say, "You know what? It's a good thing that that happened," she said.

The House Judiciary Committee says Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google are monopolies -- but its new plan to rein in their power won't change anything overnight. Instead, Democratic lawmakers propose to rewrite American antitrust law in order to restructure the U.S.'s most successful and powerful industry over time. From a report: The report is a long pass down the field of the tech industry's unfolding conflicts. It could be game-changing -- but it also might never get completed. The report, which runs more than 450 pages, proposes broad updates to antitrust law, including: limiting companies' ability to compete unfairly against third parties on their own platforms by either requiring online marketplaces to be independently run businesses or establishing rules for how such marketplaces can be organized; blocking online platforms from giving themselves preferential treatment or playing favorites with other content providers; requiring social networks to be interoperable so that people can communicate across platforms and carry their data over from one platform to another; directing antitrust enforcers to assume that an acquisition by a dominant tech firm is anticompetitive unless proven otherwise; and allowing news publishers to team up to negotiate against tech platforms looking to carry their content.

Committee investigators spent 16 months reviewing mountains of emails, memos and other evidence to reach these conclusions about the companies:
Amazon: The internet retail giant achieved its dominant position in part through acquiring competitors; has a monopoly over and mistreats third-party sellers; and has created a conflict of interest through its double role as an operator of its marketplace and also a seller there.
Apple: The report says Apple exerts monopoly power over software distribution to more than half the mobile devices in the U.S. It accuses the company of exploiting rivals by levying commissions and fees and copying apps, and says Apple gives preference to its own apps and services.
Facebook: The social media network has monopoly power in the social networking space, the report finds, and takes a "copy, acquire, kill" approach to would-be rivals such as WhatsApp and Instagram, both of which it bought in the early 2010s.
Google: The search engine has a monopoly in the general online search and search advertising markets, according to the report, maintaining its position through anticompetitive tactics such as undermining vertical search providers and acquiring rivals.

"To put it simply, companies that once were scrappy, underdog startups that challenged the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons," write the authors of the report. The other side: The companies all deny that they hold monopoly positions or that their practices and acquisitions violate antitrust law, and argue that the tech industry remains healthily competitive.

The Trump administration is pressuring Senate Republicans to ratchet up scrutiny of social media companies it sees as biased against conservatives in the run-up to the November election, Politico reported Thursday, citing people familiar with the conversations say. And the effort appears to be paying off. From the report: In recent weeks, the White House has pressed Senate Republican leaders on key committees to hold public hearings on the law that protects Facebook, Twitter and other internet companies from lawsuits over how they treat user posts, three Senate staffers told POLITICO. They requested anonymity to discuss private communications. And action is following. Senate Commerce Chair Roger Wicker held a vote in his committee Thursday to issue subpoenas to the CEOs of Facebook, Twitter and Google to testify about how they police content on their platforms. That's after Democrats initially prevented the Mississippi Republican from pushing through subpoenas that could have compelled the CEOs to testify with only a few days' notice.

Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), meanwhile, last week introduced new legislation to address alleged bias on social media and the same day scheduled a markup of the bill for Thursday -- a move that would have made it the fastest any bill on tech's liability protections has moved from introduction to a markup on Capitol Hill in recent memory. Graham announced Thursday that consideration of the measure had been tabled. Both committees are targeting liability protections that have been credited with fueling Silicon Valley's success. The provision -- enshrined in a 1996 law known as Section 230 -- has allowed online businesses to grow without fear of lawsuits over user posts or their decisions to remove or otherwise moderate users' content.