Effects of Repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

A seemingly niche and irrelevant law, Section 230 is the backbone of today’s internet, yet there is growing support for change. This article analyzes the positive and negative effects of repealing an integral part of the world wide web.

What is Section 230?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 set precedent for the interaction between platform providers and third party users. It states that providers and users may not “be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

In other words, Section 230 removes social media platforms (ex: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.) from being held liable for content users post. While this law might seem like no big deal, it serves as the basis for how the internet has developed into what it is today— for better and worse. 

What are the benefits of Section 230?

At face value, Section 230 has numerous benefits. For instance, all interactive platforms model their policies around it, as it dictates what they are liable for and what they aren’t. 

It’s pretty simple: when companies aren’t liable for what their users post, they don’t have to spend time, money, and effort on monitoring their posts. This means that rather than spending valuable resources on random moderation, these companies can innovate, develop new algorithms, protect their cybersecurity, and do a litany of other things that could make them profit. This model has clearly worked, as now more than ever, companies are prospering and the economy (for the most part) is doing well. 

Moreover, without the burden of regulation, companies don’t face the threat of litigation from aggrieved users or have to deal with a fragmented court system without any historical precedent on how to deal with moderation fragmentation. 

What are the negatives of repealing?

By repealing Section 230, all the benefits I just mentioned (and more) will be immediately revoked. Companies will be forced to devote substantial resources to regulate and moderate massive amounts of content, likely costing them billions of dollars in the long run. This will likely affect user experience and companies’ potential for innovation. Therefore, many argue repealing Section 230 will effectively kill small platforms, drowning them in an ocean of regulation and litigation. 

Moreover, platforms, both small and big alike, would likely be bogged down with litigation. Precious resources would be spent fighting frivolous litigation that was once easily dismissed under the statute, eroding companies’ profits in another way. 

Finally, increased liability has a negative correlation with investor confidence. When companies are generally free of liability, investors feel more confident investing, as the threat of a decimating lawsuit does not constantly loom over their heads. Historically, when talks about repealing Section 230 were introduced, Meta’s stock plummeted, suggesting that investors aren’t comfortable holding assets in a potentially liable company. Luckily Meta recovered, but initial discussions of repeal allude to what a world filled with provider liability looks like.

What are the benefits of a repeal?

Though it seems like a repeal would be the end all be all of the internet as we see it, there are gaping holes in the system today. For instance, there is quite literally zero accountability on what users post from most platforms. Two notable cases have established major flaws with Section 230’s ruling on liability and serve as the backbone of arguments against the law. 

The first case, Google v Gonzalez (2023), pertains to the Paris terrorist attack, in which radicalized terrorist attacks killed over 100 people in a north-Parisian suburb. Friends and family of victims in the attack, namely the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, claimed that Youtube was liable for the radicalization of terrorists through its harmful algorithmic feed. Gonzalez argued harmful radicalization videos were easily accessible through Youtube, resulting in radicalization and the deaths of many. Despite this, the 9th US Circuit Court rendered its decision in favor of Google, citing Section 230’s protective provisions as the main basis for its ruling. In other words, despite serious responsibility for causing devastating terrorist attacks, YouTube left scot-free from any liability or litigation. 

The second case, Jane Does v Reddit (2022), was a significant ruling on the status of child sexual abuse material online. Aggrieved families of children who had their sexual content posted and proliferated on the popular user app Reddit sued the company for being complacent and allowing the proliferation of  child sexual content. Though a carveout to Section 230 called the FOSTA-SESTA Act (Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act and Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act) was created in 2018 to combat sex-trafficking, companies have found and exploited a loophole within the system: the carveout makes plaintiffs prove that not only did the company know about the trafficking happening online, but to take it a step further and prove that they profited off it. In theory, an impossible feat, it is harder in real life, as Jane Does v Reddit was struck down under the premise of Section 230, since they could not prove Reddit’s full complicity. 

Effectively, a repeal of the important statute would mean that companies lose their bargaining chip with the law, forcing them to properly moderate their platforms and ensure public forums are a safe space for all. 

The real solution

Time and time again, it has been proven that a repeal is never going to happen. Though voices from both major parties, Republican and Democrat alike, have voiced support for repealing Section 230, big technology companies will always have lobbyists on Capitol Hill to ensure it won’t happen.

Thus, the most reasonable alternatives for our legislators to enact would be effective reforms of Section 230. While FOSTA-SESTA did not work out in the way it was intended to, new proposals that have made their way out of House and Senate committees, such as the SAFE Tech Act and the Duty of Care Reform Act, show promise that a responsible, yet reasonable future is in sight for companies and users alike.