Earlier this week, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Ranking Member Frank Pallone announced that unless big tech companies “work with Congress to enact… We have submitted a discussion draft of a bill to “repeal'' the . It's a new legal framework. In an accompanying opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal (paywalled), House leaders noted that “Congress did not reconsider this law” and expressed concerns about Big Tech. “Attempts by members of Congress to address the issue have been futile,” he said. They put profit over the health of our society. ” Two days later, House leadership scheduled a hearing on the proposal.
Ironically, this proposal to repeal Section 230 was the subject of an April 11 hearing of the House Energy, Commerce, and Communications Technology Subcommittee, also chaired by Representative McMorris Rodgers, entitled “Where Are We Now?” 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. “The purpose of this hearing is to “provide an opportunity to reexamine the purpose of Section 230 and discuss what Congress can do to bring this law into his 21st century.'' It is being After asking many questions and listening deeply to the ideas proposed by selected witnesses, there was strong bipartisan agreement among members that thoughtful reform, not repeal, was the best path forward. Ta.
That was a month ago. Apparently, subsequent internal discussions about “what Congress can do'' yielded no results.
Section 230 of the Communications Act protects online websites and platforms from lawsuits regarding content created by individual users using their services and the moderation of third-party content by the platforms or websites themselves.is designed Encourage We manage our content with integrity. While discussions of Section 230 are typically framed in terms of major social media platforms, it actually applies to small businesses, startup platforms, newspapers with comment sections, review sites like Yelp, dating apps, and any other individual This also includes online services that accept websites and materials. From users. The repeal of this law means that all companies that rely on user content should actively moderate, demote, or remove user content to avoid risk of liability. It means that. As history has shown, the greatest impact falls on the most marginalized or outside the mainstream communities. The wrong kind of reform of Section 230, and certainly its repeal, would have a huge negative impact on our ability to freely express ourselves online. Because while this law benefits a wide range of digital services, the primary beneficiaries of Section 230 are: user: Protects you from liability for retweeting, sharing, or forwarding other people's content.
The repeal of Section 230 also creates barriers to entry for new players who may tailor their content moderation approaches to Americans' personal values, as increased legal risk and cost containment create barriers to entry. , which will help turn Big Tech into even more Big Tech. The right kind of reform, expressed in the public knowledge principles to protect free expression on the internet, is one that focuses on platforms' own conduct rather than user content, and that places new responsibilities on platforms. Focus on the content you are paid to publish. Their advertising-based business model.
Some of the things that McMorris Rogers and Pallone accuse in their opinion comments — such as a lack of platform transparency and accountability, unsafe product design, and an uneven technology playing field — are actually is conducive to legislation. Proposals have been tabled for each of the Digital Services and Surveillance Act (DSOSA) and the American Innovation and Online Choice Act (AICOA), to name a few.
Oddly enough, McMorris Rogers and Pallone point out that “the First Amendment is the cornerstone of free speech protections in the United States.” they are right. This means that even if Section 230 were repealed tomorrow, the vast majority of attempts to impose liability for damages would be null and void. In any case, anything related to user content would be rejected on constitutional grounds. Also oddly, McMorris-Rogers and Pallone said Section 230 means platforms cannot be held liable for “the sale of drugs or illegal weapons” or posts by “criminals.” ing. However, Section 230 does not protect platforms from liability for content that violates federal criminal law.
As Chairman McMorris Rodgers and Ranking Member Pallone explain, we need national privacy laws, competition policies, accountability and transparency for platform moderation choices, dedicated digital regulators, and We support other measures to ensure that the world is a safe and healthy place. But sunset at 230 is not the answer. Tell Congress to protect Section 230.
