Name: Don’t Blame Section 230 for Big Tech’s Failures. Blame Big Tech.
Brand: eff.org
SKU: eff-org-330
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Don’t Blame Section 230 for Big Tech’s Failures. Blame Big Tech.

preview

Email updates on news, actions,and events in your area.DEEPLINKS BLOGShare ItNext time you hear someone blame Section 230 for a problem with social media platforms, ask yourself two questions: first, was this problem actually caused by Section 230? Second, would weakening Section 230 solve the problem? Politicians and commentators on both sides of the aisle frequently blame Section 230 for big tech companies’ failures, but their reform proposals wouldn’t actually address the problems they attribute to Big Tech. If lawmakers are concerned about large social media platforms’ outsized influence on the world of online speech, they ought to confront the lack of meaningful competition among those platforms and the ways in which those platforms fail to let users control or even see how they’re using our data. Undermining Section 230 won’t fix Twitter and Facebook; in fact, it risks making matters worse by further insulating big players from competition and disruption.While large tech companies might clamor for regulations that would hamstring their competitors, they’re notably silent on reforms that would curb the practices that allow them to dominate the Internet today.says that if you break the law online, you should be the one held responsible, not the website, app, or forum where you said it. Similarly, if you , you’re protected by Section 230 in the event that that material is found unlawful. It has some exceptions—most notably, that it —but at its heart, Section 230 is just common sense: you should be held responsible for your speech online, not the platform that hosted your speech or another party.Without Section 230, the Internet would be a very different place, one with fewer spaces where we’re all free to speak out and share our opinions. Social media wouldn’t exist—at least in its current form—and neither would important educational and cultural platforms like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive. The legal risk associated with operating such a service would deter any entrepreneur from starting one, let alone a nonprofit.As commentators of all political stripes have targeted large Internet companies with their ire, it’s become fashionable to blame Section 230 for those companies’ failings. But Section 230 isn’t why five companies dominate the market for speech online, or why the marketing and behavior analysis decisions that guide Big Tech’s practices are so often opaque to users.A demonstrated the highly politicized nature of today’s criticisms of Big Tech. Republicans scolded the companies for “censoring” and fact-checking conservative speakers while Democrats demanded that they do more to curb misleading and harmful statements.There’s a nugget of truth in both parties’ criticisms: it’s a problem that just a few tech companies wield immense control over what speakers and messages are allowed online. It’s a problem that those same companies fail to or . There’s little hope of a competitor with taking hold given the big players’ practice of .Unfortunately, would create immense legal risk for any new social media platform—. Can a platform filter out spam while still maintaining its “neutrality”? What if that spam has a political message? Twitter and Facebook would have the large legal budgets and financial cushions to litigate those questions, but smaller platforms wouldn’t.We shouldn’t be surprised that Facebook has joined Section 230’s critics: it literally has the most to gain from decimating the law.Likewise, if Twitter and Facebook faced serious competition, then the decisions they make about how to handle (or not handle) hateful speech or disinformation wouldn’t have nearly the influence they have today on online discourse. If there were twenty major social media platforms, then the decisions that any one of them makes to host, remove, or factcheck the latest misleading post about the election results wouldn’t have the same effect on the public discourse. The Internet is a better place when , some more restrictive and some more permissive.The hearing showed Congress’ shortsightedness when it comes to regulation of large Internet companies. In their drive to use the hearing for their political ends, both parties ignored the factors that led to Twitter, Facebook, and Google’s outsized power and remedies to bring competition and choice into the social media space.Ironically, though calls to reform Section 230 are frequently motivated by disappointment in Big Tech’s speech moderation policies, evidence shows that further reforms to Section 230 would make it . It shouldn’t escape our attention that , the 2018 law that significantly undermined Section 230’s protections for free speech online, or that Facebook is now (PDF). Any law that makes it more difficult for a platform to maintain Section 230’s liability shield will also make it more difficult for new startups to compete with Big Tech. (Just weeks after and put multiple dating sites out of business, .) We shouldn’t be surprised that Facebook has joined Section 230’s critics: it literally has .Remember, . It’s one thing for platforms to come to a decision about how to handle divisive posts by a few public figures; it’s quite another for them to create rules affecting everyone’s speech and enforce them consistently and transparently. When platforms err on the side of censorship, . Congress should not try to pass laws dictating how Internet companies should moderate their platforms. Such laws , would harden the market for social media platforms from new entrants, and would almost certainly censor innocent people unfairly.While large tech companies might clamor for regulations that would hamstring their competitors, they’re notably silent on reforms that would curb the practices that allow them to dominate the Internet today. That’s why EFF recommends that Congress update antitrust law to that have made competition in Big Tech an illusion. Before the government approves a merger, the companies should have to prove that the merger or unduly harm competition.But even updating antitrust policy is not enough: big tech companies will stop at nothing to protect their black box of behavioral targeting from even a shred of transparency. , an NYU project to shed light on how the platform was showing different political advertising messages to different segments of its user base. Major social media platforms’ business models thrive on practices that keep users in the dark about what information they collect on us and how it’s used. Decisions about what material (including advertising) to deliver to users are informed by a web of inferences about users, .Because of the link between social media’s speech moderation policies and its irresponsible management of user data, Congress can’t improve Big Tech’s practices without addressing its surveillance-based business models. And although large tech companies have endorsed changes to Section 230 and may endorse further changes to Section 230 in the future, they will probably never endorse .That the Internet Association and its members have fought tooth-and-nail to stop privacy protective legislation while lobbying for bills undermining Section 230 says all you need to know about which type of regulation they see as the greater threat to their bottom line.Any federal privacy bill must have a private right of action: if a company breaks the law and infringes on our privacy rights, it’s not enough to put a government agency in charge of enforcing the law. Users should have the right to sue the companies, and it should be in a terms-of-service agreement. The law must also forbid companies from selling privacy as a service: all users must enjoy the same privacy rights .The serve as a useful example of how tech companies can give lip service to the idea of privacy-protecting legislation while actually insulating themselves from it. After the law passed in 2018, the Internet Association—a trade group representing Big Tech powerhouses like Facebook, Twitter, and Google—spent nearly $176,000 lobbying the California legislature to weaken the law. Most damningly, the IA tried to pass a bill exempting surveillance-based advertising from the practices from which the law protects consumers. That’s right: big tech companies tried to pass a law protecting their own invasive advertising practices that helped cement their dominance in the first place. That the Internet Association and its members have fought tooth-and-nail to stop privacy protective legislation while says all you need to know about which type of regulation they see as the greater threat to their bottom line.Section 230 has become a hot topic for politicians and commentators on both sides of the aisle. Whether it’s Republicans criticizing Big Tech for allegedly censoring conservatives or Democrats alleging that online platforms don’t do enough to fight harmful speech online, both sides seem increasingly convinced that they can change Big Tech’s social media practices by undermining Section 230. But history has shown that making it more difficult for platforms to maintain Section 230 protections will further isolate a few large tech companies from meaningful competition. If Congress wants to keep Big Tech in check, it must address the real problems head-on, passing legislation that will bring competition to Internet platforms and curb the unchecked, opaque user data practices at the heart of social media’s business models.You’ll never hear Big Tech advocate that.Share ItFormer EFF intern Shashank Sirivolu contributed to this blog post. Social media users who have sued companies for deleting, demonetizing, and otherwise moderating their content have tried several arguments that this violates their constitutional rights. Courts have consistently ruled against them because social media platforms themselves have the First Amendment...In a new round of talks this week to formulate a , EFF is calling for strictly limiting the scope of the convention’s international cooperation provisions and safeguards to ensure that states respect human rights when responding to legal assistance requests.EFF is among a group of ...Since the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a half century of precedent supporting the constitutional right to abortion access, numerous states have moved towards making abortion illegal and restricting additional reproductive health services. In South Carolina, Republican state Senators Richard Cash, Rex F. Rice and Daniel B. Verdin III introduced ...Originating from the streets of Chicago, drill music is a creative output of inner-city Black youths. It is defined by real life experiences and perspectives, and whilst drill rappers often document gang-related conflict and anti-establishment narratives in their lyrics and music videos, the rap genre is a crucial mouthpiece of...Even in the face of strong public protest over a set of proposed revisions to criminal laws that infringe Indonesians’ free expression rights, the Indonesian Ministry of Law and Human Rights last month that threatens to further...The U.S. (OFAC)'s of “Tornado Cash” as an entity on the raises important questions that are being discussed around the world. OFAC explained its sanction by saying “Tornado Cash (Tornado) is a virtual currency ...Even if you think that online intermediaries should be more proactive in detecting, deprioritizing, or removing certain user speech, the requirements on intermediaries to review all content before publication—often called “general monitoring” or “upload filtering”—raises serious human rights concerns, both for freedom of expression and for privacy.General monitoring is problematic...Government involvement in content moderation raises serious human rights concerns in every context, and these concerns are further troubling when the involvement originates with law enforcement. We recently filed a with the Meta Oversight Board urging it to treat this issue seriously.When sites cooperate with government agencies, it...Students should not have to fear expulsion for expressing themselves on social media after school and off-campus, but that is just what happened to the plaintiff in C1.G v. Siegfried. Last month, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the student’s expulsion violated his First Amendment rights.The UK government has had to revise its into a proposal that wouldn’t harm users’ basic rights. It has failed to do so, and the bill should be scrapped. The current bill is a threat to free expression, and it undermines...Share It

Email updates on news, actions,and events in your area.DEEPLINKS BLOGShare ItNext time you hear someone blame Section 230 for a problem with social media platforms, ask yourself two questions: first, was this problem actually caused by Section 230? Second, would weakening Section 230 solve the problem? Politicians and commentators on both sides of the aisle frequently blame Section 230 for big tech companies’ failures, but their reform proposals wouldn’t actually address the problems they attribute to Big Tech. If lawmakers are concerned about large social media platforms’ outsized...

public

Elliot Harmon

We're the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We defend your civil liberties in a digital world.

Don’t Blame Section 230 for Big Tech’s Failures. Blame Big Tech.

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS