For close to thirty years, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has offered websites immunity from legal responsibility for material generated by users. Now Congress is mulling over the repeal, which could transform the internet in ways that have not yet been fathomed.
An anticipated legislative proposal to undo those protections, which would be bipartisan, is expected shortly in the Senate. Such a measure could borrow very heavily from possible changes for all social media sites, online retailers, and all sizes of businesses that use publicly contributed content.
What Is Section 230?
Implemented in 1996, Section 230 shields from liability online platforms for the content of third parties hosted on their sites. It classifies websites as non-traditional publishers, thereby private companies such as Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter) can escape the legal charges about the materials their users post – judicial exceptions being copyright, crimes, or other illegalities.
Impact on Social Media Companies
Should Section 230 be revoked, social media sites would penalize users for content they share. It could prompt really draconian content moderation policies—for example, heavy censorship on anything that is posted, to avoid legal risks at best, or just a very hands-off approach to escape being charged with bias at worst behavior.
And of course, there would be the recommendation algorithm-the ones that tell you what to view, what posts and videos to watch in other ways-the biggest source of risk for legal cats at such platforms. They may have to change how they configure personalization criteria or else face charges that such posts were illegally amplified for being harmful or misleading.
Impact on Online Retailers
Publishing reviews and allowing user-generated content in e-commerce could also answer troubled waters liability-wise. If a user makes a false or defamatory review for a product, the retailer would be liable to a lawsuit. This could either lead businesses to dump reviews altogether or to introduce a highly stringent pre-screening process that would probably not be favorable to the consumer.
Ultimately marketplaces such as Amazon and Etsy, too, might just be as much at risk of suffering the same consequence as third-party sellers. So, sans Section 230 protections, there they go facing liability for false product descriptors or fraudulent listings, and now they have to revamp their policy altogether to keep access to sellers restricted.
Impact on Other Online Businesses
Because all user interaction mechanisms—forums, comment sections, or community-generated content—generate potential legal exposures, it is open to any company. Small businesses may not find it cost-effective to moderate such huge amounts of content, and they may disable user contributions entirely. This may lead to a less interactive web dominated by a few large corporations that can afford to deal with such levels of legal scrutiny.
Impact on the Global Internet
It would not just touch the U.S. but beyond that. Many more globalized platforms including Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok operate legally with U.S. legal policies. Once liability rules get changed, these organizations might even develop stricter content moderation policies around the world to prevent their grievous accountability. Examples are:
- Stronger worldwide content moderation: Some sort of policy may apply across the board removing more, pre-emptively affecting free speech and online discourse.
- Legal uncertainty for international businesses: Foreign businesses hosting U.S. users will now have to comply with new legalities potentially taking lawsuits to American courts.
- Alteration within the platforms: Global businesses would consider restricting services in the U.S. or restructuring their operations towards avoiding liability.
- Effects at the global level: Countries, that may have duplicated their digital real-world policies from the U.S., would re-examine their internet laws, leading to wider regulatory changes.
Who Is Behind the Push for Repeal?
The push for the legislation is being led by Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), joined by a group of co-sponsors including Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). Though their motivations vary—some Republicans say that tech companies suppress conservative viewpoints, while some Democrats say that platforms do not do enough to curtail misinformation and hate speech.
Could Section 230 Be Fully Repealed?
A complete repeal would have broad ramifications for free speech and the digital economy; however, it is likely that lawmakers will now seek compromise. Prior proposals included some exceptions for small businesses-those with less than $25 million in annual revenue and less than one million monthly active users-but efforts to push these proposals have languished in Congress.
What Comes Next?
Should Section 230 be repealed or substantially altered, businesses would have to very radically change the way they operate online. Social media platforms may moderate aggressively, retailers may rethink ways to engage their customers, and many websites may stop user-generated content altogether.
While the tech giants and lawmakers are gearing up for a legal and political brawl, the future of online businesses, digital communications, and the worldwide Internet hangs in the balance.
Follow us on WhatsApp, Telegram, Twitter, and Facebook, or subscribe to our weekly newsletter to ensure you don’t miss out on any future updates. Send tips to editorial@techtrendsmedia.co.ke
