Hey, everyone!
I’m back with something interesting I recently came across. I was reading a post on the Freedom of Speech subreddit about Section 230 and whether it should be repealed in the U.S. It’s a fascinating topic because it touches on many issues affecting online media today (many already covered on this forum). But first, some context.
What exactly is Section 230? It’s part of the Communications Decency Act (1996), and it gives online platforms immunity from being held liable for user-generated content. Essentially, it allows platforms to moderate content without being treated as the “publisher.” In simpler terms, platforms like Facebook are viewed as carriers of information (similar to a phone company), so they aren’t held responsible for the content they host.
That’s a huge deal because it enables platforms to host a wide range of user-generated content without the fear of endless lawsuits. The traditional press doesn’t get that luxury. Without Section 230, platforms might end up censoring or blocking controversial content to avoid legal risks.
Now, here’s where the debate comes in. Some people argue for keeping Section 230, saying it protects free speech. They believe that without it, smaller platforms wouldn’t be able to handle the legal risks, and big companies would tighten censorship, shrinking the diversity of online discourse. This, they argue, would harm both free speech and innovation. Of course, there’s also the political side of things, with the MAGA crowd claiming that repealing Section 230 is a Democratic scheme to control the media—like in North Korea or something. I don’t buy into that extreme rhetoric, but I do agree that repealing Section 230 could make it harder for non-mainstream views to get out there. And I’m not talking about illegal stuff like child pornography, but alternative opinions on topics like climate change, gender, and other hot-button issues. Whether you agree with these views or not, they deserve a chance to be aired and publicly debated.
On the flip side, there are people pushing to repeal Section 230. From what I’ve seen, there are two main arguments for this:
- Unfair protection for certain companies: Platforms get liability protections like common carriers but still act like publishers with editorial control. This gives them an edge over traditional publishers who don’t have the same legal shield. That creates an uneven playing field, which wasn’t the original intention when Section 230 was passed.
- Amplification of misinformation: Critics like Roger McNamee argue that Section 230 allows platforms to spread fake news and low-quality content as long as it drives engagement and boosts ad revenue. They believe repealing or reforming Section 230 could help curb the spread of misinformation.
It’s a complex issue, no doubt. Personally, I think both sides have valid points—leaving the political mudslinging aside. We need to hold platforms accountable for the content they profit from, especially since most social media companies make billions in ad revenue and are not just neutral carriers. They actively curate content through algorithms. But at the same time, we need to ensure that controlling content doesn’t lead to a more restricted internet, where unpopular or controversial opinions are stifled.
In my opinion, the real issue arises when platforms are both carriers and editors—which is what’s happening now. Meta, Google, TikTok, and others not only own the infrastructure to share content (the feed) but also manipulate it through algorithms. That’s a problem we probably didn’t anticipate. It’s like a phone company being able to decide what conversations you can have. Not ideal.
However, I believe there’s some hope. Decentralized technologies could help us separate these two roles. For example, we could create an open, decentralized protocol that functions as a neutral carrier—anyone can use it for anything. Then, whatever is built on top of that protocol would be the editor, responsible for the content shared. So if someone posts illegal content, like nazi speech in Germany or child pornography in the U.S., they would be held accountable, but the neutral protocol wouldn’t. So, nobody could hide behind Section 230, while we preserve free access to the Internet infrastructure for everybody.
That seems like a promising solution. So far, big tech giants have controlled everything, and it’s not working out too well. Decentralized networks could provide a better way forward by placing responsibility where it belongs, without creating the kind of chaos we have now.
By the way, this is exactly what Bluesky is doing. It’s a social network built as a client on the federated open protocol, atproto, and it’s not the only one—other clients are in the works too. I believe Olas is moving in this direction as well, and I think that’s a fantastic idea! I’m really excited to see how things develop over the next few months.
