While the Republican’s are taking a chainsaw to the United States, Democrats are proposing to take a sledgehammer to internet protecting law, Section 230.
The Trump Republican’s have proven to be an enormously destructive force against America. Institution by institution, the systematic dismantling of the country has not only been shocking, but stunningly quick as well. In fact, the Trump administration has been so brazen about their efforts to destroy America, shadow president, Elon Musk, even went so far as to take a chainsaw on stage at CPAC to showcase how gleeful he is destroying America.
Now, politically speaking, you’d think that Democrats would be taking this opportunity to rebuild the party and showcasing why destroying America is such a bad idea. What’s more, maybe present a vision for how they plan on repairing America after this whirlwind of Republican destruction. Apparently, however, that is actually asking too much.
Recently, Democrats have been pushing to take a sledgehammer to Section 230, the famous law that protects the foundation of the internet, free speech. Now, Section 230 is not that hard to understand. In fact, the text of the law is simply this:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
This is basic common sense enshrined into law. If you say something, you are responsible for that speech. The owners of that speech don’t bare responsibility for that speech. So, for instance, if an anonymous user were to show up on your site and post child abuse imagery, sure, you are going to be taking steps to take that content down, but you shouldn’t be charged with dissemination of illegal material afterwards. After all, you had no knowledge that such imagery was going to be posted in the first place, so being charged for that users actions makes no sense.
The problem is, opponents to the internet and free speech have been long proposing that this law be sunsetted. To be clear, there is no reason to sunset Section 230 as it is a critical component to protecting actual free speech. So, rather than attack the law for what it really does, opponents have been completely distorting the purpose of Section 230 and inventing completely fabricated tales of what the law does.
For example, some have argued that Section 230 is simply a law that protects so-called “Big Tech” exclusively. Obviously, that is completely false because this law protects all websites both big and small.
Another way that internet opponents have tried to lie about Section 230 is by making up tall tales about how Section 230 is simply outdated and that it is responsible for manipulative algorithms you see today. Again, that is completely false. First of all, Section 230 is just as relevant today as it was when it was first enshrined into law. Second, Section 230 makes no direct mention of algorithms at all. If you are so highly concerned about manipulative algorithms, then pass a law directly targeting algorithms and how they should or should not behave. Killing Section 230 would basically completely destroy the American internet just because you don’t like an aspect of a specific set of services that exist online. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Yet, disinformation campaigns like the above examples continue to carry on, designed to fool American’s into believing that Section 230 is some sort of threat to them personally. The motivations are, of course, obvious. There are those that are threatened by the idea that citizens can be empowered by the internet to have a voice in a system that is already stacked against them. For some, the real purpose of dismantling Section 230 is to take those voices out and heavily regulate who gets a voice on anything and who does not. While some might sit there and argue, “b-b-but Trump!”, well, conservative radio has existed long before the internet, so that aspect of speech has always been around. You can’t blame the internet for the existence of extremists voicing their opinion.
It’s partly why it is so disheartening to see that even at a time when America has been plunged into great uncertainty, Democrats are continuing the push to destroy the internet by attacking Section 230. From TechDirt:
Senator Dick Durbin, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, has emerged with what can only be described as a masterclass in missing the point. In a press release that reads like it was written in an alternate universe where the biggest threat to democracy is… checks notes… website comment sections, Durbin announced his excitement about taking away Section 230.
This week, Durbin will join U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) to introduce a bill that would sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in two years. Section 230—and the legal immunity it provides to Big Tech—has been on the books since 1996—long before social media became a part of our daily lives. To the extent this protection was ever needed, its usefulness has long since passed.
Let’s unpack this for a moment. At a time when an unelected billionaire is effectively running the government via his own social media platform, Democrats have decided to partner with… squints harder… the very Republicans who’ve been helping enable this takeover, to eliminate the law that makes alternative social media platforms possible in the first place.
The thing is, this isn’t just regular old political malpractice — this is advanced political malpractice. We’ve known for years that these same Republican senators have been quite open about their plans to use Section 230’s removal as a weapon against speech they don’t like. It’s right there in their public statements! This isn’t some clever political chess move — it’s handing matches to an arsonist who has loudly declared his intention to burn your house down, while insisting it’s necessary to improve fire safety.
But Durbin’s fundamental mischaracterization of Section 230 as mere “legal immunity for big tech” betrays either willful ignorance or calculated misdirection. Section 230 is, at its core, a shield for speech – your speech, my speech, everyone’s speech. It protects individuals and small websites far more than it protects Silicon Valley giants. It’s what keeps you safe when you forward an email or share a post. It’s what enables sites for people to review doctors or mechanics or employers. It’s what makes it possible for Wikipedia to exist. It’s what enables the very digital discourse we need to maintain democracy.
The dumbest part: removing Section 230 would actually entrench Big Tech’s power, not diminish it. The giants would survive just fine — most cases against them would still fail on First Amendment grounds. But defending speech under the First Amendment is far more complex and expensive than Section 230’s straightforward protections. Meta, Google, and their ilk have armies of lawyers to handle this. Everyone else? Not so much.
Masnick is absolutely correct here. Dismantling Section 230 would ensure that the existing “Big Tech” players will always remain as “Big Tech”. Dismantling Section 230 would ensure a scorched Earth policy directed at smaller players who aren’t a multi-billion dollar company at the absolute smallest.
You want to start a website talking about how algorithms on social media is destroying people’s mental health? Tough shit. You want to start a small business selling knitted sweaters while putting up a small store front online? Tough shit. You want to set up a website portal for your union? Tough shit. You want to start a website saying climate change is a hoax? Tough shit. You want to build a website laying out why vaccines saves lives? Tough shit. You want to build a small news website reporting on local events? Tough shit. You want to create a respectable alternative social media platform? Tough shit. You want to create a server space and become a web hosting company? Tough shit. I could go on.
At the end of the day, dismantling Section 230 would completely cement the position of the likes of Facebook and Google. No one in the US would even have a chance at making a startup. There’s no “innovative” business alternative to be had there unless you plan on starting up a web service outside of the United States. At that point, kiss a huge chunk of all that economic activity goodbye because that money is heading for the countries exits.
The timing of all of this for the Democrats part is extremely piss poor. Now is not the time to be talking about how Democrats wish to destroy parts of America. As Masnick already stated above, Republican’s are aiming to dismantle this law because it helps them to ensure that speech they disagree with gets removed quickly. The fact that Democrats are assisting them in taking out freedom of expression is a huge political scandal as far as I’m concerned. What the heck is wrong with Democrats all of a sudden?
