Section 230 Is Under Attack (Again)
Once again, lawmakers are threatening to strip tech companies of their legislative sword and shield. Section 230, also known as the twenty-six words that made the internet, is a small section of the Communications Decency Act that protects social media platforms from legal liability when making decisions around users’ posts. (It protects a website like Yelp, for instance, from being sued over defamatory reviews written by its users.) When Section 230 was first enacted, in 1996, it attracted bipartisan support, with the intention of helping struggling websites to grow. But as tech companies developed enormous power and influence, lawmakers started to argue that the provision gives platforms too much immunity. As such, Section 230 has become a frequent target for legislative change. I wrote about some of these calls before Christmas, while noting that it wasn’t yet clear exactly where the new administration stood on the question.
Related Knowledge Center: Media and the law
Toxic politics and vast shifts in the technology landscape have created a plethora of thorny issues — both legal and ethical — for newsrooms, courts, and regulators.
The Meta-FTC trial | Section 230
Related Knowledge Center: Free speech and public protest
The First Amendment is facing challenging times: Crackdowns on campus protests prompted both-sides claims of intolerance. Attempts to head off dangerous health misinformation have been characterized as violations of free speech. Donald Trump is publicly punishing news outlets that deviate from his administration’s version of events while privately suing some outlets into submission.
The White House vs. the press | Voiceless America
Related Knowledge Center: Social media
Social media platforms are the source of news for millions of people — and they have a fraught and ever-shifting relationship with the enterprises that provide that news.
The TikTok ban | The Meta-FTC trial
Related Knowledge Center: Section 230
Legislation enacted in 1996 protected interactive computer services from liability for third-party content — and defenders and critics of the law have been debating it ever since.