US Senator moves to file Section 230 repeal: What is the law? How will a ban affect your free speech on the internet?

General News
1

According to this article

US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on Friday said that he was moving to file a bipartisan bill to repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, provides limited federal immunity to providers and users of interactive computer service, according to the US Congress website.

It generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by their users.

This provides immunity to platforms like Facebook, TikTok, X, ad Instagram from content posted by its users, essentially making free speech online.

The law has been applied to protect social media companies from lawsuits based on their decisions to transmit or take down user-generated content.

Experts argue that a repeal of Section 230 could kill free speech on the internet.

As the Legal Clarity website says

Without Section 230, many smaller platforms might be forced to shut down or never launch due to the overwhelming legal and financial burdens of defending against lawsuits or implementing extensive content moderation. This would create a significant barrier to entry for new companies, stifling innovation and competition in the online space. The result could be further consolidation of online power among a few large companies that can afford the increased legal and operational costs, limiting the diversity of online services available to users.

The EFF warns

The free and open internet as we know it couldn’t exist without Section 230.

More information in this article in The Conversation: What would happen if Section 230 went away? A legal expert explains the consequences of repealing ‘the law that built the internet’

2

I worry how this will affect end-to-end encryption (for instance Signal is US based), VPNs, Tor relays, other privacy-focused services hosted on US servers, etc. Would compliance after repeal of section 230 require those operators to deanonymize their users or undermine their encryption?

2 Likes
3

According to this article

The link doesn’t lead to anywhere.

This bill has has very small chances to go anywhere.

4

I worry about small forums, like this place.

5

Hopefully it does now.

Hopefully it won’t!

6

Why?

It’s been awhile it has been on legislators radar.

7

Exactly! it’s been ages with no action, which suggests there’s no political appetite to tinker with Section 230. Moreover, big‑tech would face massive backlash. They’d either be sued into oblivion or forced to impose draconian content moderation, neither option is attractive. So they’ll likely pour a lot of money into lobbying against any changes.
At least this is my thinking

1 Like
8

Frankly, I am on the fence about this. I haven’t done research on what the further consequences could be.

As of right now, however, I don’t see it as extremely bad for things like decentralized platforms. It might hurt companies that are trying to create centralized platforms, but for platforms like Mastadon and Discourse, this could actually promote decentralization.

Removing the bill, I imagine, will negatively affect centralized platforms like Reddit and Twitter because those platforms aim for huge user bases as a growth metric to indicate or signal to investors that their company is doing good (the classic growth-for-the-sake-of-growth mindset responsible for enshhittification). But this large userbase backlashes when they are held accountable for them, under Section 239.

For platforms like Matrix, Discourse, and Mastadon, however, it seems like the responsibility will be put on the instance runners, not the company or developers themselves.

But who knows, I haven’t read section 230 much, and haven’t thought about this thoroughly. Just what came to my head at the moment.

9

But do you think the responsibility should be put on the instance runners?

Wouldn’t scare people to run instances at all and thus have the opposite effect you were describing?

I guess it depends a lot on how the law is changed or what will replace it, if anything.

10

I think instance runners should be responsible in running and moderating their services. But do I think they should act as publishers of their userbase (what section 230 is about)? No.

Yes, it would definitely scare people to voluntarily becoming instance runners. But when section 230 is repealed, giant platforms like YouTube, Reddit, and Twitter will become legally liable for what their customers post. To avoid lawsuits, they will therefore likely censor and moderate everything.

Increased censorship would mean that user-generated content would become heavily constrained, contested, and policed. This is a topic of interest even today in a world where section 230 still exists. Once repealed, its effects would be thricefold. Users wouldn’t want the platform breathing down their necks even further about what they can and cannot post. Community runners, in order to maintain their community, would likely feel the need to create their own platforms.

Increased moderation would mean that more manpower/labor is likely needed for corporations to moderate their giant platforms and stay afloat. Off the top of my head, they can offset moderation costs in a couple of ways:

(1) Costs are increased on the user/consumer. This could look like paywalling features, higher subscription rates, etc. More money = more moderators hired to moderate the platform.
(2) Moderation is off-shored to third-world countries, similar to how physical labor is these days.
(3) Or… AI moderation increases significantly to automate the process.
(4) ID verification functioning like a pseudo-KYC to incentivise users from posting content that is prone to moderation.

Either way, all of this is will incentivise people to get off the platform and create their own. But though I would prefer decentralized platforms, I don’t mean to imply that I would want section 230 to be repealed. Additionally, if decentralization rises as a result of repealing section 230, more regulation would likely arise to regulate decentralization anyway.

Edit: Here’s a paper that seems to be relevant to this, but I haven’t read it yet: The Decentralized Web and the Future of Section 230 - The CGO

1 Like