Скачать или смотреть Section 230 Reform | Just the Issues

In recent years, social media platforms have flexed their powers and banned many people in the political space. Initially starting with figures on the fringe, the banning’s have become more mainstream with news publications and Donald Trump falling victim to the platforms. Behind the recent banning’s is Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Social media companies have massive influence over the public debate and calls for reforming the act have come from all sides. Today we’ll be reviewing Section 230 and common criticisms of it.
Before we get started, don’t forget to like and subscribe.
As adoption of the internet grew, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act as an attempt to regulate online pornographic material. The Federal Communications Commission already restricted indecency on TV and radio broadcasts, so this was seen as applying the same rules to a new medium of communications. While the indecency provisions would be struck down as unconstitutional, many portions of the law remained intact.
Section 230 continued as an important check against liability for internet platforms. The section of the law gave internet providers immunity for the things third parties posted on their websites. While there are exceptions for intellectual property rights and some criminal behavior, websites are generally free from liability for the content posted to their sites. This provision makes the important distinction between neutral platforms and active publishers on the internet.
While internet platforms and service providers are generally not seen as publishers, the act does allow some leeway for moderation. The so called good Samaritan provision allows platforms to restrict access in good faith for obscene, lewd, excessively violent, or otherwise objectionable content. This otherwise objectionable standard has been used by social media platforms as a legal justification for many recent bans on their platforms. Critics argue that the standard is far too broad and gives social media companies the power to act as publishers without being liable for the content they allow.
The law has come under fire by just about everyone involved in the discussion. Republicans say it allows internet media companies to put their finger on the scale for democrats by unequally enforcing the rules. Democrats say that big tech should be held liable for not doing a good enough job removing misinformation and hate. Individuals online have to contend with increasingly complex and shifting terms of service. The CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, has even come out supporting reform on the issue.
While most want reform, the likelihood of seeing it is slim due to competing visions of reform. Conservatives see Democratic proposals as a path for additional censorship of their views online while liberals see Republican proposals as a path to allow political misinformation and hate speech to run rampant on the platforms. To make matters more difficult, tech companies have clearly entered the political arena and both sides say social media companies actively promote the other side.
Undergirding the conversation is a philosophical debate on the regulation of the commons. The commons are resources that all members of society should have access to. As our political discussions move online, some have argued that platforms should represent a digital commons that allow all to participate. Others say it’s only natural to regulate the commons since resources are shared and limited.
Do you think it’s time to reform Section 230? If so, how do you think we should do it? Comment down below and don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe. Thank you for watching and have a great day!