https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/05/sunsetting-section-230-will-hurt-internet-users-not-big-tech Skip to main content * About + Contact + Press + People + Opportunities * Issues + Free Speech + Privacy + Creativity and Innovation + Transparency + International + Security * Our Work + Deeplinks Blog + Press Releases + Events + Legal Cases + Whitepapers + Podcast + Annual Reports * Take Action + Action Center + Electronic Frontier Alliance + Volunteer * Tools + Privacy Badger + Surveillance Self-Defense + Certbot + Atlas of Surveillance + Cover Your Tracks + Crocodile Hunter + Street Level Surveillance + apkeep * Donate + Donate to EFF + Giving Societies + Shop + Other Ways to Give + Membership FAQ * Donate + Donate to EFF + Shop + Other Ways to Give * Search form Search [ ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Email updates on news, actions, and events in your area. Join EFF Lists * Copyright (CC BY) * Trademark * Privacy Policy * Thanks Electronic Frontier Foundation Donate [htfi-winte]Podcast Episode: Chronicling Online Communities [htfi-winte] Electronic Frontier Foundation * About + Contact + Press + People + Opportunities * Issues + Free Speech + Privacy + Creativity and Innovation + Transparency + International + Security * Our Work + Deeplinks Blog + Press Releases + Events + Legal Cases + Whitepapers + Podcast + Annual Reports * Take Action + Action Center + Electronic Frontier Alliance + Volunteer * Tools + Privacy Badger + Surveillance Self-Defense + Certbot + Atlas of Surveillance + Cover Your Tracks + Crocodile Hunter + Street Level Surveillance + apkeep * Donate + Donate to EFF + Giving Societies + Shop + Other Ways to Give + Membership FAQ * Donate + Donate to EFF + Shop + Other Ways to Give * Search form Search [ ] Sunsetting Section 230 Will Hurt Internet Users, Not Big Tech DEEPLINKS BLOG By Aaron Mackey and Joe Mullin May 20, 2024 A person holding a megaphone that another person speaks through Sunsetting Section 230 Will Hurt Internet Users, Not Big Tech Share It Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link A person holding a megaphone that another person speaks through As Congress appears ready to gut one of the internet's most important laws for protecting free speech, they are ignoring how that law protects and benefits millions of Americans' ability to speak online every day. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding a hearing on Wednesday on a bill that would end 47 U.S.C. SS 230 ("Section 230") in 18 months. The authors of the bill argue that setting a deadline to either change or eliminate Section 230 will force the Big Tech online platforms to the bargaining table to create a new regime of intermediary liability. As EFF has said for years, Section 230 is essential to protecting individuals' ability to speak, organize, and create online. Congress knew exactly what Section 230 would do - that it would lay the groundwork for speech of all kinds across the internet, on websites both small and large. And that's exactly what has happened. Section 230 isn't in conflict with American values. It upholds them in the digital world. People are able to find and create their own communities, and moderate them as they see fit. People and companies are responsible for their own speech, but (with narrow exceptions) not the speech of others. The law is not a shield for Big Tech. Critically, the law benefits the millions of users who don't have the resources to build and host their own blogs, email services, or social media sites, and instead rely on services to host that speech. Section 230 also benefits thousands of small online services that host speech. Those people are being shut out as the bill sponsors pursue a dangerously misguided policy. If Big Tech is at the table in any future discussion for what rules should govern internet speech, EFF has no confidence that the result will protect and benefit internet users, as Section 230 does currently. If Congress is serious about rewriting the internet's speech rules, it needs to abandon this bill and spend time listening to the small services and everyday users who would be harmed should they repeal Section 230. Section 230 Protects Everyday Internet Users The bill introduced by House Energy & Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-WA) and Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) is based on a series of mistaken assumptions and fundamental misunderstandings about Section 230. Mike Masnick at TechDirt has already explained many of the flawed premises and factual errors that the co-sponsors have made. We won't repeat the many errors that Masnick identifies. Instead, we want to focus on what we see as a glaring omission in the co-sponsor's argument: how central Section 230 is to ensuring that every person can speak online. Let's start with the text of Section 230. Importantly, the law protects both online services and users. It says that "no provider or user shall be treated as the publisher" of content created by another. That's in clear agreement with most American's belief that people should be held responsible for their own speech--not that of other people. Section 230 protects individual bloggers, anyone who forwards an email, and social media users who have ever reshared or retweeted another person's content online. Section 230 also protects individual moderators who might delete or otherwise curate others' online content, along with anyone who provides web hosting services. As EFF has explained, online speech is frequently targeted with meritless lawsuits. Big Tech can afford to fight these lawsuits without Section 230. Everyday internet users, community forums, and small businesses cannot. Engine has estimated that without Section 230, many startups and small services would be inundated with costly litigation that could drive them offline. Deleting Section 230 Will Create A Field Day For The Internet's Worst Users The co-sponsors say that too many websites and apps have "refused" to go after "predators, drug dealers, sex traffickers, extortioners and cyberbullies," and imagine that removing Section 230 will somehow force these services to better moderate user-generated content on their sites. Nothing could be further from the truth. If lawmakers are legitimately motivated to help online services root out unlawful activity and terrible content appearing online, the last thing they should do is eliminate Section 230. The current law strongly incentivizes websites and apps, both large and small, to kick off their worst-behaving users, to remove offensive content, and in cases of illegal behavior, work with law enforcement to hold those users responsible. If Congress deletes Section 230, the pre-digital legal rules around distributing content would kick in. That law strongly discourages services from moderating or even knowing about user-generated content. This is because the more a service moderates user content, the more likely it is to be held liable for that content. Under that legal regime, online services will have a huge incentive to just not moderate and not look for bad behavior. Taking the sponsors of the bill at their word, this would result in the exact opposite of their goal of protecting children and adults from harmful content online. Related Issues Section 230 Share It Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link Join EFF Lists Discover more. Email updates on news, actions, events in your area, and more. Email Address [ ] Postal Code (optional) [ ] Anti-spam question: Enter the three-letter abbreviation for Electronic Frontier Foundation: [ ] Don't fill out this field (required) [ ] [Submit] Thanks, you're awesome! Please check your email for a confirmation link. Oops something is broken right now, please try again later. Related Updates [section-230-3_0] Deeplinks Blog by Sophia Cope, Aaron Mackey | March 18, 2024 EFF to California Appellate Court: Reject Trial Judge's Ruling That Would Penalize Beneficial Features and Tools on Social Media EFF legal intern Jack Beck contributed to this post.A California trial court recently departed from wide-ranging precedent and held that Snap, Inc., the maker of Snapchat, the popular social media app, had created a "defective" product by including features like disappearing messages, the ability to connect with people through mutual... How to Fix the Internet - Ron Wyden - 'I Squared" Governance Deeplinks Blog by Josh Richman | March 12, 2024 Podcast Episode: 'I Squared' Governance Imagine a world in which the internet is first and foremost about empowering people, not big corporations and government. In that world, government does "after-action" analyses to make sure its tech regulations are working as intended, recruits experienced technologists as advisors, and enforces real accountability for intelligence and law enforcement... [student-privacy-og] Deeplinks Blog by Jason Kelley, Aaron Mackey, Joe Mullin | February 15, 2024 Don't Fall for the Latest Changes to the Dangerous Kids Online Safety Act The authors of the dangerous Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) unveiled an amended version this week, but it's still an unconstitutional censorship bill that continues to empower state officials to target services and online content they do not like. [capitol-2] Deeplinks Blog by India McKinney | September 26, 2023 EFF, ACLU and 59 Other Organizations Demand Congress Protect Digital Privacy and Free Speech Earlier this week, EFF joined the ACLU and 59 partner organizations to send a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer urging the Senate to reject the STOP CSAM Act. This bill threatens encrypted communications and free speech online, and would actively harm LGBTQ+ people, people seeking reproductive care,... [section_230_banner] Deeplinks Blog by Sophia Cope | August 4, 2023 EFF to 9th Circuit: App Stores Shouldn't Be Liable for Processing Payments for User Content EFF filed a brief this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit arguing that app stores should not be liable for user speech just because they recommend that speech or process payments for those users. Those stores should be protected by Section 230, a... A person holding a megaphone that another person speaks through Deeplinks Blog by David Greene | July 22, 2023 DC Circuit FOSTA Ruling Lets a Bad Law Stay on the Books, But Offers Meaningful Protection for Some Sex Work Forums and Sex Workers Using Online Services The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on July 7 affirmed the dismissal of Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. US, the constitutional challenge to FOSTA. That's certainly disappointing: this bad law will now stay on the books.But the good news is that FOSTA stays on the books in a... [section-230-3_0] Deeplinks Blog by Aaron Mackey | May 18, 2023 The Internet Dodges Censorship by the Supreme Court The Supreme Court today refused to weaken one of the key laws supporting free expression online, and recognized that digital platforms are not usually liable for their users' illegal acts, ensuring that everyone can continue to use those services to speak and organize.The decisions in Gonzalez v. Google and... How to Fix the Internet Podcast Episode: Safer Sex Work Makes a Safer Internet Deeplinks Blog by Josh Richman | April 18, 2023 Podcast Episode: Safer Sex Work Makes a Safer Internet An internet that is safe for sex workers is an internet that is safer for everyone. Though the effects of stigmatization and criminalization run deep, the sex worker community exemplifies how technology can help people reduce harm, share support, and offer experienced analysis to protect each other. But a 2018... [big-tech-lines-1] Deeplinks Blog by Mukund Rathi | April 7, 2023 EFF to Ninth Circuit: Twitter Has First Amendment Right to Ban Users, Including Presidents Time and time again, we have said-and courts have ruled-that social media platforms have the First Amendment right to ban users. We have argued that banned users cannot successfully sue platforms for acting as government censors without showing that the platforms willfully and fully ceded their editorial discretion... A person holding a megaphone that another person speaks through Deeplinks Blog by Ernesto Falcon | March 31, 2023 Bad Content Moderation Is Bad, And Government Interference Can Make It Even Worse This week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing titled "Preserving Free Speech and Reining in Big Tech Censorship." Lawmakers at the hearing trotted out the usual misunderstandings of these concepts, and placed the blame on Section 230, the law that actually promotes free speech online. Discover more. Email updates on news, actions, events in your area, and more. Email Address [ ] Postal Code (optional) [ ] Anti-spam question: Enter the three-letter abbreviation for Electronic Frontier Foundation: [ ] Don't fill out this field (required) [ ] [Submit] Thanks, you're awesome! Please check your email for a confirmation link. Oops something is broken right now, please try again later. Share It Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link Related Issues Section 230 Back to top EFF Home Follow EFF: * x * facebook * instagram * youtube * flicker * linkedin * mastodon * tiktok * threads Check out our 4-star rating on Charity Navigator. Contact * General * Legal * Security * Membership * Press About * Calendar * Volunteer * Victories * History * Internships * Jobs * Staff * Diversity & Inclusion Issues * Free Speech * Privacy * Creativity & Innovation * Transparency * International * Security Updates * Blog * Press Releases * Events * Legal Cases * Whitepapers * EFFector Newsletter Press * Press Contact Donate * Join or Renew Membership Online * One-Time Donation Online * Giving Societies * Shop * Other Ways to Give * Copyright (CC BY) * Trademark * Privacy Policy * Thanks JavaScript license information *