Section 230 is often described as the Sword and Shield of the Internet. The "Shield" is (c)(1), allowing platforms to host user-generated content without being treated as the publisher or speaker of that content. The "Sword" is (c)(2), allowing platforms to moderate content in good faith.
From the proposed amendment:
Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(g) Sunset.—This section shall have no force or effect after December 31, 2026.”.
Is it pearl-clutching to claim that section 230 helps to defend the free internet? Or is it unnecessary and time for it to go away?
Since speech is supposedly protected anyway, it shouldn’t much matter whether platforms are considered publishers or not.
Zooming out, if the internet is only free because of 230 then it isn’t free at all.
Isn't the whole thing with section 230 that a platform like SN isn't liable if one of the users uploads a threat or some kind of libel? In the case of a normal book or newspaper publisher, they could be sued for publishing the libel, whereas with "user generated content" section 230 was supposed to allow the platform to be exempt from the liability.
But the larger point you make is good: there are many jurisdictions that have no such protections and they still have the user generated content.
I was making more of a comment on how diminished free expression already is than offering my thoughts on what will or should happen.
The issue with 230 was that platforms were trying to have it both ways, by actively curating content and being immune from liability, which gave them an unfair advantage over publishers. I always thought they should either insist more strongly that platforms not act as editors or just extend the protections to everyone.
Repealing 230 seems like it would open a gnarly can of worms.