Speaking on the current troll trail Swara says, “I have no comments for people who are petty, who are hypocritical or who slut-shame. I also have no comments for idiots. Currently I am ignoring these people and feeling very happy with the rest of the team of ‘Veere Di Wedding’ about the success of the film.
“A lot of people on social media are speaking up for me and I sincerely want to thank them all for the support.”
As far as being trolled for her masturbation sequence in “Veere Di Wedding” is concerned Swara comments, “I have been targeted by paid trolling in the past and I’m used to it. Many twitter-users and some prominent comedians and commentators have turned the ‘I took my Grandmother to watch VDW’ into very funny satirical comments on twitter . I’m grateful both for their support and their humour.”
About her contradictory opinion on Pakistan Swara clarifies, “I believe there should be a distinction between States/ Governments of a country and the civilians of that country. My regard for and goodwill towards the people of Pakistan remains unchanged. Some of my closest friends are Pakistani. Lahore remains one of my soul cities.”
Her last words on trolling are significant.
“I believe the social media is a virtual public place just like restaurants, parks and cinema halls. Just as we expect a decent level of behaviour we must insist on decent and decorum on social media. If we see someone being abused slammed or slut shamed in a public place wouldn’t we stand up and defend the person from being attacked.
“Likewise we must stand up and protect the social media from indecent uncivilized attacks. Basically I am engaged in debates and arguments with trolls so that that precious public space doesn’t get taken over by bullies and perverts.”
Right now Swara would rather focus on the splendid success of “Veera Di Wedding”.
“The box office numbers do not surprise me. I had a gut feeling that the film would work at the box office. But the opening-day figure surprised me. I had thought we’d do a 6-cr opening on a good day. I think we have cracked the glass ceiling and myth that women-centric films cannot get big openings,” she said. (IANS)
U.S. Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday questioned whether Facebook, Google and other major online platforms still need the immunity from legal liability that has prevented them from being sued over material their users post.
“No longer are tech companies the underdog upstarts. They have become titans,” Barr said at a public meeting held by the Justice Department to examine the future of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
“Given this changing technological landscape, valid questions have been raised about whether Section 230’s broad immunity is necessary, at least in its current form,” he said.
Section 230 says online companies such as Facebook Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Twitter Inc. cannot be treated as the publisher or speaker of information they provide. This largely exempts them from liability involving content posted by users, although they can be held liable for content that violates criminal or intellectual property law.
Barr’s comments offered insight into how regulators in Washington are reconsidering the need for incentives that once helped online companies grow but are increasingly viewed as impediments to curbing online crime, hate speech and extremism.
The increased size and power of online platforms has also left consumers with fewer options, and the lack of feasible alternatives is a relevant discussion, Barr said, adding that the Section 230 review came out of the Justice Department’s broader look at potential anticompetitive practices at tech companies.
Lawmakers from both major political parties have called for Congress to change Section 230 in ways that could expose tech companies to more lawsuits or significantly increase their costs.
Some Republicans have expressed concern that Section 230 prevents them from taking action against internet services that remove conservative political content, while a few Democratic leaders have said the law allows the services to escape punishment for harboring misinformation and extremist content.
Barr said the department would not advocate a position at the meeting. But he hinted at the idea of allowing the U.S. government to act against recalcitrant platforms, saying it was “questionable” whether Section 230 should prevent the American government from suing platforms when it is “acting to protect American citizens.”
Others at the meeting floated different ideas.
The attorney general of Nebraska, Doug Peterson, noted that the law does not shield platforms from federal criminal prosecution; the immunity helps protect against civil claims or a state-level prosecution. Peterson said the exception should be widened to allow state-level action as well. Addressing the tech industry, he called it a “pretty simple solution” that would allow local officials “to clean up your industry instead of waiting for your industry to clean up itself.”
Matt Schruers, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, which counts Google and Facebook among its members, said such a solution would result in tech giants having to obey 50 separate sets of laws governing user content.
He suggested law enforcement’s energies might be better spent pursuing the millions of tips that the tech industry sent over every year, only a small fraction of which, he noted, resulted in investigations.
“There appears to be some asymmetry there,” he said.
Others argued that different rules should apply to different platforms, with larger websites enjoying fewer protections than internet upstarts.
“With great scale comes great responsibility,” said David Chavern, of the News Media Alliance, whose members have bristled as Google and Facebook have gutted journalism’s business model.
How to distinguish
But other panelists argued that distinguishing one site from another might be tricky. For example, would platforms like Reddit or Wikipedia, which have large reach but shoestring staffs, be counted as big sites or small ones?
The panelists also briefly debated encryption, another area over which Barr has pressed the tech industry to change its modus operandi. Facebook in particular has drawn the ire of U.S. officials over its plans to secure its popular messaging platform.
Kate Klonick, a law professor at St. John’s University in New York, urged caution.
“This is a massive norm-setting period,” she said, with any alterations to one of the internet’s key legal frameworks likely to draw unexpected consequences. “It’s hard to know exactly what the ramifications might be.” (VOA)