Talk:EARN IT Act

Renaming page
As the bill has been reintroduced in Congress, would it make sense to change the page name, as it has extended beyond 2020? Or do conventions dictate it has to bear the year when it originated? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've made the move and adjusted the lead. --M asem (t) 01:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This article lacks academic integrity
Why is this article half about the bill and half political hit piece, in particular the "events leading up.." section.

Ted Cruz's comments, while true, are unrelated to the bill, which makes no modifications whatsoever to the good samaritan protections he is referencing. Same with the comments of russian interference, Republican leadership, and sites taking down misinformation. This is all related to good samaritan protections section 230(c), which has no amendments under the EARN IT act.

Similarly, how are offhanded comments about "Republican leadership" and an election four years prior relevant to a bill whose co-sponsers have been evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.

This extra "context" materially misleads readers about the actual legal impact of the bill, the pass or failure of which would have no impact on any off the issues raised in that section. 50.34.32.206 (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The EARN IT Act does affect the protections provided by Section 230(c) because it "would open interactive online content platforms to civil and criminal liability for hosting child sexual abuse material if they decline to adopt the Commission's best practices", since the "best practices" are not an existing requirement to obtain the protections. Because of this, the background sections about Section 230 belong in this article.It would be helpful to mention the positions of Democrats who dislike Section 230, since they are different from the positions of Republicans who dislike Section 230. This article from The Conversation and the articles it links to have more information:


 * The coverage in reliable sources shows that the public reception to the EARN IT Act is primarily negative, and the "Reception" section reflects this. As WP:DUE states, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." —  Newslinger  talk   13:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Location of Lindsey Graham's comments
I think the following paragraph should be moved from the "Legislative history" section to the "Reception" section, under a new "Members of Congress" subheading that also includes Ron Wyden's comments:

Putting only the comments of the bill's sponsors in the "Legislative history" section would slant that section in favor of the bill, when it is otherwise a straightforward description of the bill's progress in Congress. —  Newslinger  talk   11:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I just realized that I was the one who moved that statement to "Legislative history" in the first place, in Special:Diff/984635560. I've self-reverted that in Special:Diff/1072788129, which also splits the "Reception" section into more manageable "Non-governmental organizations", "Members of Congress", and "Media outlets" subsections. —  Newslinger  talk   13:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Dangers of EARN IT Act?
This page does not seem to discuss at all the potential dangers this bill can pose, which technical experts and activists are frequently alarming the public about. Should it be discussed in the page? Octevemir (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Octevemir


 * We have to be careful here because the bill itself doesn't lay out anything specific, it is what the committee will come to decide, which is where there are fears. So its like a step removed. --M asem (t) 01:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)