🐱 Democrats are open to changing one of the internet’s bedrock principles

CatParty


Technology has been a hotly debated issue among Democrats vying for their party’s nomination for president this year.
A number of candidates have called for breaking up major tech giants like Amazon and Google, while others have called for increased investment in broadband or restoring net neutrality rules.


But recently, the idea of tweaking—or even revoking—Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has also come up.
In mid-January, former Vice President Joe Biden said that the law should be “immediately” revoked. But Biden isn’t the only one who has brought up the idea.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said last year that the section was a “gift” to tech giants and that they were not “treating it with the respect that it deserves.”
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has also introduced a bill that would amend Section 230 by making the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) certify that tech companies are being neutral in moderation, specifically regarding political bias.

Meanwhile, Attorney General William Barr said in December that the Department of Justice was “thinking critically” about Section 230. The DOJ is also inviting people to a workshop on the issue next month, according to the Information.
However, the idea of repealing Section 230 has been fiercely criticized. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has called the section “one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the internet.”

What is Section 230?
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in 1996, essentially protects websites from being liable for what is posted on them by third parties.
The law is obviously important for social media companies, but websites that have comment sections also rely on it.

Specifically, the section says that: “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” provides blanket protection.
This keeps companies like Facebook and YouTube free from facing lawsuits about the misinformation and conspiracy theories that percolate on their platforms.
2020 Democrats Section 230
Here is what some of the 2020 Democrats have said about Section 230. This post will be updated if more candidates speak about it.
1) Joe Biden
Biden made headlines in mid-January when he told the New York Times editorial board that Section 230 “should be revoked, immediately should be revoked.”

Biden continued to describe his reasoning, in the context of Facebook:
“It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy. You guys still have editors. I’m sitting with them. Not a joke,” Biden told the editorial board. “There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. It’s irresponsible. It’s totally irresponsible.”
In the past, Biden said “we should be considering taking away” the protections, according to Politico.
2) Andrew Yang
In November 2019, entrepreneur Andrew Yang released a planoutlining “regulating technology firms in the 21st century.”

Within the plan, Yang said he would “Amend the Communications Decency Act to reflect the reality of the 21st century—that large tech companies are using tools to act as publishers without any of the responsibility.”
3) Amy Klobuchar
In March, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) spoke with Recodeat South by Southwest where she said wanted to “look at how we can create more accountability” when asked about Section 230.
“We do not want to destroy these companies, right? But what we want to do is to put more accountability in place and we have been failing at that effort, and that’s why we need all of your help to get to a better place,” the Minnesota senator said.
4) Bernie Sanders
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) seemed to imply in a statement to Vox that Section 230 needed some revisions, specifically regarding platforms when they “knowingly allow content… that promotes and facilities violence.”

“Section 230 was written well before the current era of online communities, expression, and technological development, so will work with experts and advocates to ensure that these large, profitable corporations are held responsible when dangerous activity occurs on their watch, while protecting the fundamental right of free speech in this country and making sure right-wing groups don’t abuse regulation to advance their agenda,” he told the news outlet.
5) Michael Bloomberg
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg told the Mercury News in mid-January that he was open to “more limited antitrust enforcement” when talking about breaking up large tech companies.
Bloomberg is in favor of reviewing Section 230 and is expected to release a technology proposal in the coming weeks, a campaign spokesperson told the Daily Dot.
6) Tulsi Gabbard
In late January, Gabbard told Politico this week that “in the coming days” she will be introducing legislation that “amends Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act by eliminating big tech’s immunity and ensuring accountability.”

In November, Gabbard’s campaign spokesperson hinted at her bill when talking with Politico, saying that she would “remove the protection from liability that some Big Tech platforms have.”
The spokesperson added “they should not have special protections if they allow false, defamatory, libelous articles or advertisements,” if they are “acting as publishers.”
7) Michael Bennet
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) told Vox that it was time to “revisit” Section 230, adding that it “may have made sense in the earliest years of the internet, but it makes little sense for a time when tech companies are some of the wealthiest and most powerful on the planet.”
 
You make a valid argument, but I still really think you're missing the big picture which is that the situation is getting worse, and the worse it gets, the harder it is going to be to address. To me it seems like big tech is trying to set itself up to control society in an Orwellian fashion. If they keep gaining more power, it will eventually get to where you literally have no privacy, and wont even be able to function within society without their consent.
I worry that if we broke section 230, it'd function as a kind of regulatory capture. Facebook, twitter, etc lawyers would quickly figure out the bare minimum regulation they would have to do to keep their business humming along as usual, but because they're now regulated under the watchful eye of uncle sam, they'd basically be christened the "standard public square", which would shut down any need for competition.

And at the same time, it'd make competition harder because competing would require paying for lawyers to figure out your liability.

Compared to now, anyone can just create a website and have people post on it. They're not responsible for what people post. They can also kick people off and curate and decide what they want their website to discuss. If they started meddling with section 230, randos could just come in off the street and start filing complaints and swamp your fledgling forum. I bet they'd even have activist groups formed to fund the legal challenges. Like internet antifa.

My ideal internet would keep section 230, but also regulate the shit out of the financial industry. Anyone can start a website and rule over their fiefdom with 100% control, plus they can freely collect money to fund it.

Basically, we have to reduce the "free speech" of website operators or the "free speech" of bankers. And I'd rather have 100% free speech for website operators (yes, even facebook*) and almost 0% free speech for bankers.

* Yes, even facebook, but I think in a world where (for example) null didn't get his patreon nuked or where Dick didn't get his payment processor account nuked, facebook wouldn't be as prominent as it is now. Sure it'd still be big, but there'd be major alternatives.
 
I worry that if we broke section 230, it'd function as a kind of regulatory capture. Facebook, twitter, etc lawyers would quickly figure out the bare minimum regulation they would have to do to keep their business humming along as usual, but because they're now regulated under the watchful eye of uncle sam, they'd basically be christened the "standard public square", which would shut down any need for competition.

Also competing would require a huge amount of money to pay lawyers to handle the liability.

Compared to now, anyone can just create a website and have people post on it. They're not responsible for what people post. They can also kick people off and curate and decide what they want their website to discuss. If they started meddling with section 230, randos could just come in off the street and start filing complaints and swamp your fledgling forum. I bet they'd even have activist groups formed to fund the legal challenges. Like internet antifa.

My ideal internet would keep section 230, but also regulate the shit out of the financial industry. Anyone can start a website and rule over their fiefdom with 100% control, plus they can freely collect money to fund it.

Basically, we have to reduce the "free speech" of website operators or the "free speech" of bankers. And I'd rather have 100% free speech for website operators (yes, even facebook*) and almost 0% free speech for bankers.

* Yes, even facebook, but I think in a world where (for example) null didn't get his patreon nuked or where Dick didn't get his payment processor account nuked, facebook wouldn't be as prominent as it is now. Sure it'd still be big, but there'd be major alternatives.
I agree that the financial side is worse, but I still think that once a site gets to a certain size, it needs to be given the option to either break up, and sell assets, or it needs to have some rules to limit its ability to censor speech. I think at the very least, a major site shouldn't be able to ban people for wrong think, and should instead be able to move things to political boards on the site.
 
I worry that if we broke section 230, it'd function as a kind of regulatory capture. Facebook, twitter, etc lawyers would quickly figure out the bare minimum regulation they would have to do to keep their business humming along as usual, but because they're now regulated under the watchful eye of uncle sam, they'd basically be christened the "standard public square", which would shut down any need for competition.

And at the same time, it'd make competition harder because competing would require paying for lawyers to figure out your liability.

Compared to now, anyone can just create a website and have people post on it. They're not responsible for what people post. They can also kick people off and curate and decide what they want their website to discuss. If they started meddling with section 230, randos could just come in off the street and start filing complaints and swamp your fledgling forum. I bet they'd even have activist groups formed to fund the legal challenges. Like internet antifa.

My ideal internet would keep section 230, but also regulate the shit out of the financial industry. Anyone can start a website and rule over their fiefdom with 100% control, plus they can freely collect money to fund it.

Basically, we have to reduce the "free speech" of website operators or the "free speech" of bankers. And I'd rather have 100% free speech for website operators (yes, even facebook*) and almost 0% free speech for bankers.

* Yes, even facebook, but I think in a world where (for example) null didn't get his patreon nuked or where Dick didn't get his payment processor account nuked, facebook wouldn't be as prominent as it is now. Sure it'd still be big, but there'd be major alternatives.
Cory Doctorow talked a lot about this with Sean Carroll. His take is that Facebook never played fair, that they bootstrapped themselves by webcrawling other social media sites like MySpace and hacking an integration. That way, you could join Facebook and still communicate with your friends on other networks. Once Facebook were established, they then sued the shit out of anyone who tried to do the same to them.

I'm tempted by the idea that these government regulations will cripple the big tech companies, and anyone else trying to build the next big centralised monstrosity, and that this will force any tech-head who cares about internet freedom to work harder on and support decentralised solutions. But then I think it's my naive optimism talking, and that these politicians are just working to consolidate the tech giants via regulatory capture. They may also be looking to clamp down even harder on copyright infringement.
 
Back