An option to change s230 of The Communications Decency Act (1996) to protect our children.

I recently watched an interview with Elon Musk where he was able to hide behind s230 of the Communications Decency Act regarding hate speech on X.? I have included a link in the comments section.?

We need to change the laws as they were made before tech companies like X existed. The specific laws are s230 of the Communications Decency Act and the Net Neutrality laws. Changing these laws will be difficult and will involve the US House of Representatives, the European Union, and potentially The United Nations.

In this article, I propose a single idea that may help change these laws. It's not about beating up the tech companies but about encouraging conversation surrounding the most important issue facing our children today.

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, specifically Section 230, was enacted to protect online computer services from liability for third-party content generated by their users. This legislation was introduced during the early stages of the Internet when numerous companies were setting up discussion rooms and forums to facilitate the exchange of ideas. The intent was to protect these emerging platforms from being held liable for the vast amount of content posted by users, thereby encouraging the growth of the Internet as a space for free expression and innovation.

However, the landscape of the internet has dramatically changed since then. The small forums and discussion rooms have largely been replaced by massive tech companies like Google, Meta (formerly Facebook), and X (formerly Twitter), which generate billions in revenue by capturing user data and selling targeted advertising. These companies have become powerful entities with significant control over the content and interactions that take place on their platforms. It's high time we address this growing concern that Section 230, in its current form, provides too much protection to these tech giants, allowing them to avoid accountability for harmful content that proliferates on their platforms.

One potential solution to address this imbalance is to amend Section 230 to provide immunity based on the revenue generated from the internet. For instance, non-profit organizations and smaller entities that do not generate significant revenue from user data and advertising could retain their immunity. In contrast, large for-profit companies like Google, Meta, and X could be held liable in a manner similar to traditional media companies. These companies must manage and moderate the content published across their platforms more rigorously, ensuring that harmful and illegal content is promptly addressed.

This approach would recognize the different roles and responsibilities of various online entities and could help protect children and vulnerable populations from harmful content. By holding large tech companies accountable, we could encourage them to invest more in content moderation and user safety measures. Additionally, it would ensure that the original intent of Section 230—to foster innovation and free expression—is preserved for smaller and non-profit platforms while adapting to the realities of today's internet dominated by a few powerful corporations.

Implementing such changes would require not just careful consideration, but also active collaboration among policymakers, tech companies, and civil society. The collective input and expertise are crucial in balancing the benefits of open online communication with the need to protect users from harm. Together, we can shape a more responsible and accountable digital landscape.

In my next articles, I will examine net neutrality laws and how they could be amended to protect our children.? I will also look at how we could use the Universal Service Obligation (USO) to help protect our children.

Notes:

In writing this article, I put my core ideas into ChatGPT, wrote a few paragraphs, and asked ChatGPT to review and add anything that may have been overlooked.?