A few days ago, a quiet, pleasant, and very important hearing was recently held by the House committee that oversees the technology industry. Too many Congressional hearings can quickly descend into showmanship, but this one was thoughtful and bipartisan. What was the topic that gave rise to such a consensus? Changing the fundamental laws governing how the Internet, and social media companies in particular, operate.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 has remained untouched since its creation nearly 30 years ago. The provision, which absolves platforms from liability for content posted by users, has long been hailed as a cornerstone of the internet.
There has been a lot of empty talk about Section 230 over the past few years, but something different is in the air. Lawmakers from both parties seem to understand that. Tech companies should no longer be granted blanket impunity – they are harming our children, our mental health, and our democracy. One of the witnesses, Mary Ann Franks, a professor at George Washington University, testified that “there is no legitimate basis for absolving the technology industry from the liability that virtually all individuals and industries face when they cause harm.” did.
Social media companies are currently the largest and most powerful media companies on the planet, but they don’t have to play by the same rules as every other company, including traditional media companies. But they continue to look more and more like traditional media companies every day. They are audio and video broadcasters, publishers, online amusement parks and gaming venues, and more. You can gather tens of millions of viewers in an instant. The main difference between the company and traditional media companies is that most of its content is produced for free by freelancers, or “users” or “creators” as they like to call them.
When I was a magazine publisher, probably 95 percent of our content was produced by freelancers (or creators) who weren’t on our payroll, but we paid most of them and sent letters to magazines. It has been edited and carefully reviewed. Editors — Because we can be held responsible for what we publish.
But imagine this. Recently, FOX News was embroiled in his massive $787.5 million settlement for defamation by Dominion Voting Systems, stemming from false claims made about Dominion machines in the 2020 election. I understand that. While Fox News is facing legal repercussions for spreading false claims about Dominion, platforms like Twitter have been spreading similar falsehoods about Dominion. even widerand monetized, Completely avoided the consequences. It is noteworthy that they have long been allowed to hide behind the veil of being a “neutral platform”.
As Rep. Frank Pallone (D.N.J.) said at the hearing, their “get-out-of-jail-free card must end.” And all of his colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, agreed with him.
But how exactly does that happen? One way is through the first part of Section 230 (section (c)1), which exempts technology companies from liability for content posted on their sites. is simply to abolish it. But sometimes a more nuanced approach is needed. Specifically, social media (and other sites) have shown deliberate indifference to the harm caused by speech, and have been forced to act against deliberate machines (algorithms) from entering into revenue-sharing agreements with content creators. Until you make curation choices, you should be responsible if you have agency in promoting your content. Boost.
What is needed to make this work for both large and small businesses is a legal mechanism that allows people to document harm and request that content be removed. To that end, legislation was enacted to combat online copyright infringement and hold platforms legally responsible for copyrighted content if they fail to remove it or otherwise hold them legally responsible for copyrighted content. Take inspiration from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
Free speech flourished in America long before the advent of the internet and social media. We have some of the best speech laws in the world and a wealth of jurisprudence that upholds the First Amendment. Let me be clear: it doesn’t change anything. Updating Section 230 builds on our nation’s proud tradition of protecting freedom of expression while protecting those who speak to and are addressed. Radicals, geniuses, revolutionaries, conspiracy theorists, and heretics will be as free as they were before the Internet.
Beyond the legal implications, the changes to Section 230 have very positive cultural and moral implications. Laws do more than just dictate what is legal and illegal. They form society’s norms and values. By exempting platforms from liability, Section 230 has created the idea for nearly 30 years that everything is online, regardless of its impact on individuals or society as a whole. We have all seen the dire consequences of that thinking on ourselves, on our children, on our personal and family relationships, and on the tone and tone of conversations and discussions about America. So changing 230 not only changes the law, it also helps dilute the toxicity in the population’s bloodstream.
During a House hearing, Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) said: “My father used to say to me, ‘When he doesn’t do something, he does something.'” So we have to deal with this. ” Indeed, it is time for Congress to do something, and the bipartisan path and sense of urgency seem increasingly clear.
Nick Penniman is the founder and CEO of Issue One.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
