The impact on the public sphere has been significant, to say the least. To remove so much liability, Section 230 highlights certain types of business plans that are based not on information independently available from a particular service, but on paid mediation of access and influence. I forced myself to do that. This is how we ended up with a business model with the deceptive name of “advertising” that forced society as a whole into a 24/7 competition for attention. A polarized social media ecosystem. Recommender algorithms that mediate content and optimize engagement. We know that, at least from an algorithmic perspective, humans are most preoccupied with rapid emotions associated with fight-or-flight responses and other high-stakes interactions. In enabling the privatization of the public square, Section 230 inadvertently precludes deliberation among citizens who should be equal before the law. Perverse incentives encourage petulant speech and effectively stifle thoughtful speech.
And there is also economic imbalance. Internet platforms that rely on Section 230 tend to collect personal data for business goals without adequate compensation. Even if the data is copyrighted or otherwise protected or prohibited, Section 230 often effectively holds infringing parties liable through takedown notification requirements. Switching the order of events related to liability is comparable to the difference between opting in and opting out in privacy. It may seem like a technicality, but it actually makes a big difference and can cause serious harm. For example, workers in information-related industries, such as local news, have seen a significant decline in their economic success and prestige. Section 230 makes a world of data dignity functionally impossible.
In the past, content moderation has too often ignored established corporate terms of service in the pursuit of attention and attention. Rules are often bent to maximize engagement through inflammation, but this can mean harm to individual and societal well-being. The excuse is that this is not censorship, but is it really censorship? Arbitrary rules, privacy practices, and cancel culture create a situation that is difficult to distinguish from censorship of calm, well-intentioned people. At the same time, expanding freedom of inflammatory speech against bad actors fosters mob rule. All of this is done under the liability shield of Section 230, effectively giving technology companies carte blanche for a myopic version of self-serving behavior. What all Americans now seem to agree on is disdain for these companies that have found a way to be more than carriers, but not publishers.
known transactions Because the unknown is always scary, especially for those who have the most to lose. Because at least some of Section 230's network effects were anticipated at its inception, a sunset clause should have been provided. It didn't. 26 Rather than focusing solely on the disruption caused by deprecation, it is useful to consider the potential positive impacts. When we imagine the world after 230, we discover something surprising. It is a world of hope and renewal worth living in.
In a sense, it's already happened. Some companies are now taking their own steps toward a post-230 future. For example, YouTube is working hard to create alternative revenue streams to advertising, giving top creators more options for income. Taken together, these independent moves suggest a different, more publisher-like self-conception. YouTube seems to be preparing for his post-230 era. (Companies like X, on the other hand, lean heavily on Section 230, destroying its value at an alarming rate.) Moreover, there have always been exceptions to Section 230. For example, if someone enters personal information, there are laws. In some cases, for protection. This means that dating sites have the option of charging a fee instead of relying on a 230-style business model. The existence of these exceptions suggests that many more examples will appear in the world after 230 years.