What happens if Section 230 is repealed?
Mickey Mellen
Partner at GreenMellen | Website Developer | Speaker | Technology Enthusiast
Donald Trump has been pushing hard for Section 230 (part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act) to be repealed, but what happens if is it?
For starters, it’d make things much worse for Trump.
The bulk of Section 230 is this statement:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
In other words, if users post something on a website, the owner of the site can’t be held liable for it (aside for things such as federal crimes). It’s kind of like if you send something illegal through the mail, the USPS doesn’t get in trouble for it. It’s a good thing.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has this to say about the potential of Section 230 being eliminated:
Given the sheer size of user-generated websites it would be infeasible for online intermediaries to prevent objectionable content from cropping up on their site
Rather than face potential liability for their users’ actions, most would likely not host any user content at all or would need to protect themselves by being actively engaged in censoring what we say, what we see, and what we do online.
So what happens if Section 230 is repealed? No one knows for sure, but here are some possibilities:
No more reviews
Amazon and Yelp thrive on Section 230, allowing reviews that they’re not held liable for. Either they’ll need to moderate every single review, but more likely they’d just get rid of them to avoid the risk.
Facebook and Twitter dominate
Facebook and other sites would possibly need to pre-approve every single post and comment. That would be bad enough, but Facebook and a few other large networks are the only ones with the money and staff to do it. There’d be essentially no way for a new social network to compete without a huge budget for staff and moderation.
In Trump’s case, instead of occasionally getting “fact-checked” on Twitter, every Tweet of his would have to be pre-approved and he would no longer have that instant communication channel to the world.
Bye-bye, Wikipedia
Wikipedia is all about user-generated content, so it would disappear very quickly. Basically, anywhere that you can post on someone else’s site (like on social media), your ability to do that would be considerably reduced or removed.
So what should happen?
There’s not an easy answer. A full repeal of 230 would be disaster, but things are pretty messy already when it comes to fake news and censorship. Some tweaks to 230 could be good, but sorting those out will be a painful process. My point today is that the calls to “Repeal 230!” are seemingly misguided, and it’s a much more nuanced discussion that needs to happen.
The next few years should be interesting to watch, and will have massive impacts on how the internet will look in the future.
------
First posted at: https://www.mickmel.com/what-happens-if-section-230-is-repealed/
Professional Cow Tipper ?? Brand Strategist ?? StorySelling ?? Marketing Strategist ?? Video Marketing || #MarketingMadeGreat
4 年Hey Mickey, Maybe it's time for sites like Parlar that try to keep free speech alive so it can still thrive or at the very least be an alternative to Facebook, Twitter, and Google which seems to think they know what is best for me. I doubt they even have a clue! After all, currently, I still have the freedom of choice to read, listen, hear, follow, like, or watch what I want. Just like I have chosen to like and follow you. If Big Tech feels compelled to be subjective about censoring what I post right or wrong then it's time for me to make a different choice or create something better. I mean, after all, I can still change the channel, select a different platform, or pick a different station freely on my own without anyone telling me what I can or can't do still today in the USA! Repeal section 230 and maybe all the platforms, news channels, and we as people will think twice about spreading the double standard they aspire to. We are entitled to our opinion minus threats and potential harm to another person or persons. Cross the line and you need to be accountable just like CNN, Washington Post, and others were with Nicholas Sandman. Opinion before facts never works. Also, facts do not care about your or my emotions and/or opinions! Like I said before this is my opinion. If I offended someone, I apologize. Wait! Better yet can we talk about this? I would actually like to hear your thoughts as well. a healthy debate may actually solve some of this. I have to believe at the end of the day we all want what is right for ourselves, our family, friends, and even this great country! Just a thought to your comments Mickey! Mark