Sunsetting Section 230 Will Hurt Internet Users, Not Big Tech 

🌈 Abstract

The article discusses the proposed bill to end Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms and users from liability for third-party content. It argues that Section 230 is essential for protecting free speech and the ability of individuals to speak, organize, and create online, and that repealing it would harm everyday internet users, not just big tech companies.

🙋 Q&A

[01] Section 230 Protects Everyday Internet Users

1. What is Section 230 and how does it protect internet users?

• Section 230 protects both online services and users, stating that "no provider or user shall be treated as the publisher" of content created by another.
• It protects individual bloggers, email forwarders, social media users who reshare content, content moderators, and web hosting providers from liability for third-party content.
• Without Section 230, many startups and small services would be inundated with costly litigation that could drive them offline.

2. How would repealing Section 230 impact online moderation and content?

• Repealing Section 230 would discourage online services from moderating user-generated content, as the more they moderate, the more likely they are to be held liable for that content.
• This would result in the opposite of the bill sponsors' goal of protecting people from harmful online content, as services would have an incentive to not moderate at all.

[02] Deleting Section 230 Will Create A Field Day For The Internet's Worst Users

1. What is the argument made by the bill sponsors regarding Section 230?

• The bill sponsors argue that too many websites and apps have "refused" to go after "predators, drug dealers, sex traffickers, extortioners and cyberbullies," and imagine that removing Section 230 will force these services to better moderate user-generated content.

2. Why is this argument flawed?

• In reality, Section 230 strongly incentivizes websites and apps to kick off their worst-behaving users, remove offensive content, and work with law enforcement to hold users responsible for illegal behavior.
• Repealing Section 230 would have the opposite effect, as online services would have a huge incentive to not moderate at all to avoid liability for user-generated content.