Nearly 30 years after it was created, and after 15 years of political wrangling about it, it’s beginning to look a law that protects internet companies from legal action over third-party content is on its way out.
Created in 1996, Section 230 is an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934 and is part of the larger Telecommunications Act of 1996. In part, and crucially, it says that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
This meant that a platform, like GeoCities of yesteryear, wasn’t legally liable for anything its users created, even if the content was illegal as long as there was a good-faith moderation effort. Essentially, it prevented “interactive computer services” from being defined as publishers.
Because it came about in the nascent days of the internet, platforms were significantly more fractured. Misinformation, hate speech, and dangerous content were harder — but not impossible — to find.
While the internet has arguably gotten bigger since 1996, in many ways, it’s actually become quite a bit smaller. Social media platforms, like Facebook, TikTok, and X have billions of users.
Essentially, most of the internet’s content comes from a handful of websites — websites that aren’t held legally responsible for how they manage said content.
Section 230’s progenitors wouldn’t have been able to predict the pervasiveness of social media. It’s relatively easy to find illegal content on any one of the major social media platforms, and sometimes it seems even harder to avoid.
It’s for this reason that lawmakers are seeking to kill off Section 230 — sort of.
According to The Information, Democrat Senator Dick Durban and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham plan to introduce a bill that would set an expiration date of January 1, 2027, for Section 230. The proposal could come as soon as the week of March 24.
It’s already gotten quite a bit of support from both sides. Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, both Republicans, and Sheldon Whitehouse and Amy Klobuchar, both Democrats, have allegedly agreed to co-sponsor the bill.
A congressional aid familiar with the matter has said that the goal isn’t to repeal 230 in its entirety, but rather to force the tech industry into negotiations.
“The idea would be to force them to the table, and if they don’t come to the table and agree to meaningful reform, then ultimately Section 230 would be repealed,” the congressional aide told The Information.
While it has its support, not everyone agrees with Congress’ methods. Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law called it “a form of extortion.” Adam Kovacevich, founder of tech lobbying form Chamber of Progress called it “hostage taking.”
They argue that without free speech, platforms would either be overly sanitized or completely abandoned.
Again, wide support from politicians lacking the acuity to regulate tech
This effort is only the latest in a long line of efforts to modify or completely exterminate Section 230. This time around, though, it seems as though there is enough support from the government — including from President Trump — to get the ball rolling.
And, as tends to be the case, both parties have different reasons for wanting Section 230 to be changed.
Democrats’ concerns often focus on plainly illegal acts being committed on platforms, while being blind to peripheral damage that would happen if the law was killed. Common Democratic focuses include drug sales prevalent on Snapchat, “sextortion” scams on Instagram, and child sex abuse material on dating apps.
Republicans, naturally, have different issues with Section 230.
While Section 230 protects companies from liability for user-posted content, it also provides “good Samaritan” protection. This protection both requires good-faith user-generated content moderation, and gives platforms the right to remove content that it does not choose to host, without fear of punishment.
Many Republicans, including Trump, see this as an attack on individuals’ free speech, and often erroneously equate the changes that they want to first amendment protections. However, like the Democrats, the focus on one aspect of Section 230 ignores the side-effects of the law being eliminated.
Changes frequently put forth by Republicans effectively demand that a private platform, such as the AppleInsider forums, be required to host any and all user-generated content.
The Information keenly points out that one party believes tech companies are doing too little to protect users, while another believes they are overstepping their boundaries.
Ultimately, though, both parties are unhappy with Section 230, and it’s possible that we may see sweeping changes coming to the internet should the bill gain enough support.
