Section 230

What it is and why it needs to be amended. Before it's too late.

For those familiar with my essays, there is a recurring theme. In my ongoing calls for social media platforms to be held accountable for their continuous abuses, I frequently invoke Section 230. This term and provision aren't widely known, but they should be because they are at the heart of what's wrong with the internet. A few weeks ago, one of my subscribers asked me to explain what it is and why it needs fixing. So, here's my attempt to do just that.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act serves as the legal backbone of the Internet. Created nearly three decades ago, this law was designed to shield internet platforms from liability for the actions and content provided by third parties on their platforms. The opening statement of Section 230 reads: "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." These 26 words are considered by some to be the foundation of the internet as we know it and simply put none of these social media platforms can be sued for the content they host, no matter how repugnant or dangerous.

That's where it all began and it made perfect sense at the time, even to Senator Ron Wyden, the principal author of the legislation in 1996. However, that was before the emergence of platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter which transformed the internet from funny cat videos to what we see now - videos that show the murder of my daughter, Alison. For a more in-depth look at Section 230, its origins, and our current situation, I recommend checking out this excellent Vox article. Also, if you get the chance, watch Alex Winter's documentary, "The YouTube Effect," in which I share my story. It provides a terrific examination of the platform's origins and its subsequent devolution, putting it all into perspective.

It's ironic that if there's any bipartisanship in Congress, it's their shared disdain for social media, albeit for different and, in the case of Republicans, flawed reasons (see the Vox article). As Senator Warner's former chief of staff once told me, "Google has no friends on Capitol Hill." Nevertheless, as the Vox piece outlines, there has been no progress in reform, most likely because Google and Meta have more lobbyists than all others combined.

So, when I say that Section 230 is at the root of all the issues with the internet, I mean it both literally and figuratively. No, Section 230 isn't directly responsible for the atrocities depicting Hamas murders of innocents, the coordination of real-time attacks, targeted harassment, or the sale of guns and illegal drugs. However, it has shielded Google, Facebook, and Twitter from the punitive liability they deserve for allowing and profiting from hosting such horrific content on their platforms.

How do we put an end to this unconscionable practice once and for all? I have a simple solution, but unfortunately, it's still going to require an act of Congress, as they say. Here it is:

Remove the blanket immunity from liability. Period. Yes, it may initially impact the courts, but frivolous lawsuits can and will be dismissed. For those of us with legitimate claims, allow us to hold these platforms accountable legally. When that happens, the cesspool will start to clean itself up. To those who claim this would obstruct the First Amendment, let me reiterate: Showing murder is not free speech; it's savagery with no place in civilized society.

I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this.