Bill introduced to strip Section 230 protections from the internet
A bi-partisan bill has been introduced that would remove Section 230 legal protections from companies that "engage in certain manipulative practices" but in practice, would strip the protections from nearly every internet venue with user interaction.
Credit: WikiMedia
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields online platforms from liability for content posted by others on their sites. The protections allowed early platforms to flourish, but has come under scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators.
The Break Up Big Tech Act of 2020, introduced Wednesday by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), seeks to strip companies of those protections if they take supposed actions like "acting as publishers and censoring certain users."
Both Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Gosar position the bill as a way to stop the alleged censorship of users and opinions. There are elements of the bill that also are aimed to curb targeted advertising and the commodification of user data.
"This bill removes the legal immunity that service providers have taken advantage of to act with impunity, while maintaining Section 230 protections for those who provide truly neutral social media platforms or search engines without the use of manipulative algorithms," Gabbard said.
More specifically, the legislation would remove Section 230 protections from online companies that perform the following activities.
Section 230 has become a political target in recent years. Republicans, for example, believe that social media companies are censoring conservative viewpoints, while Democrats believe Section 230 shields social media companies when they proliferate misinformation or misleading content. In actual practice with section 230 reforms as proposed, venues will engage in more moderation -- not less -- to guarantee that they still fall under the legal protections of the statute.
Back in October, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said the FCC has the ability to interpret the law, and signaled a plan to do so. In September, the Justice Department outlined legislation that would alter certain Section 230 protections.
President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order earlier in 2020 after Twitter flagged one of his tweets as misleading. On the campaign trail, President-elect Joe Biden also said that he supports revoking the law.
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Sundar Pichai, and Twitter's Jack Dorsey all testified before Congress earlier in 2020 about Section 230 and the allegations of censorship. Criticism of the protections also surfaced in what was supposed to be an antitrust hearing in July.
Credit: WikiMedia
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields online platforms from liability for content posted by others on their sites. The protections allowed early platforms to flourish, but has come under scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators.
The Break Up Big Tech Act of 2020, introduced Wednesday by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), seeks to strip companies of those protections if they take supposed actions like "acting as publishers and censoring certain users."
Both Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Gosar position the bill as a way to stop the alleged censorship of users and opinions. There are elements of the bill that also are aimed to curb targeted advertising and the commodification of user data.
"This bill removes the legal immunity that service providers have taken advantage of to act with impunity, while maintaining Section 230 protections for those who provide truly neutral social media platforms or search engines without the use of manipulative algorithms," Gabbard said.
More specifically, the legislation would remove Section 230 protections from online companies that perform the following activities.
- Selling and displaying targeted ads without a user's consent
- Collecting data for "commercial purposes other than the direct sale of the interactive computer service."
- Acting as a marketplace by "facilitate the placement of items into the stream of commerce."
- Employing digital products intended to "engage and addict users" to the service.
- Acting as a publisher by using algorithms to moderate or censor content without opt-in from users
Section 230 has become a political target in recent years. Republicans, for example, believe that social media companies are censoring conservative viewpoints, while Democrats believe Section 230 shields social media companies when they proliferate misinformation or misleading content. In actual practice with section 230 reforms as proposed, venues will engage in more moderation -- not less -- to guarantee that they still fall under the legal protections of the statute.
Back in October, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said the FCC has the ability to interpret the law, and signaled a plan to do so. In September, the Justice Department outlined legislation that would alter certain Section 230 protections.
President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order earlier in 2020 after Twitter flagged one of his tweets as misleading. On the campaign trail, President-elect Joe Biden also said that he supports revoking the law.
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Sundar Pichai, and Twitter's Jack Dorsey all testified before Congress earlier in 2020 about Section 230 and the allegations of censorship. Criticism of the protections also surfaced in what was supposed to be an antitrust hearing in July.
Comments
This bill makes a lot of sense...which means it has absolutely no chance of passing.
Cheerleaders of the bill need to consider unanticipated consequences. Comment forums will largely disappear from most fan sites, and the ones that remain will heavily moderate (censor). It's rare that any of them earn enough profit to weather just one lawsuit over content posted by a user.
Several comments above cheering this on. I can almost guarantee those people have no idea of the effects this would have across the board.
There are many ways to accomplish responsibility and moderation on social media websites. This is not one of them. Support of this particular proposal can only come from ignorance and a lack of knowledge. This is not how you make big tech and FB responsible. It would be a complete and utter disaster.
Besides, McConnell will never allow a vote and Biden would never sign it. Grandstanding by politicians who want to pile on and burnish their resume for 2022 elections by falsely claiming all the great things they did for Americans. What a load of pure BS.
She stayed in the Democratic primary for over a year despite continually polling around 1%. If that isn't delusional, I don't know what is.
You believe wrong. And you somehow think this only applies to what you would call "liberals."
Do you realize Fox, NewsMax, OAN, Rush Limbaugh, etc. would likely suffer far more than your dreaded liberals?
230 did not exist until relatively recently, so it would just go back to the way it was before.
This needs to happen.
The hyperbole in this thread reminds me a lot of the “end of the world” nonsense people insisted would result as a consequence of eliminating so-called “Net Neutrality”. Obviously, it was all panic talk.
Get informed here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
The H-nter B-den laptop scandal was widely reported at the time it occurred (before the election) by conservative sources, and those tweets and accounts were censored or eliminated by Twitter for posting information which came directly from the laptop. All kinds of disgusting stuff. And now that the election is “over” suddenly now CNN (for example) is covering it after denying its existence. CNN and Twitter both acted as propaganda arms of the DNC.
Nobody in their right mind would place themselves in a position where they can be held liable for other people's crimes and indiscretions. Likewise, repeal of this provision would not only encourage mass censorship, but instill it as a survival mechanism for anyone bold enough to attempt to provide a public forum that allows open participation.
This bill is just another case of one group saying "Only we can ascertain the truth and we will enforce it as we see fit." This is not a slippery slope, this is an icy cliff. Unfortunately, after the truth decay, hate priming, and "win at any cost" behaviors that have become normalized over the past several years, this bill may gain some traction. The same failings in human nature and twisted cognition that led 900+ attendees of the Jim Jones kool-aid party to be led to the gates of hell by a psychopathic but charismatic leader are still very much in play to this day. It's just a matter of time before the party starts.