Name: It’s Not 230 You Hate, It’s Oligopolies
Brand: eff.org
SKU: eff-org-422
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

It’s Not 230 You Hate, It’s Oligopolies

preview

Email updates on news, actions,and events in your area.DEEPLINKS BLOGShare ItAs we continue to hear calls to repeal or change Section 230, it appears that many people have conflated a law that affects the tech giants (among many others) with Big Tech as a whole. Section 230 is not a gift to Big Tech, nor is repealing it a panacea for the problems Big Tech is causing—to the contrary repealing it will only exacerbate those problems. The thing you hate is not 230. It’s lack of competition.Section 230 stands for the simple principle that the party responsible for unlawful speech online is the person who said it, not the website where they posted it, the app they used to share it, or any other third party. That is, the only person responsible for your online speech is you. It has some limitations—most notably, it does nothing to —but it is, at its core, a common-sense law that incentivizes new services to allow users to share and store expression. And Section 230 isn't just about Internet companies, either. Any&nbsp;intermediary&nbsp;that hosts user-generated material receives this shield, including nonprofit and educational organizations like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive.What Section 230 does not do is grant Big Tech companies a magical shield against competitors or entrench their power. In fact, it does the opposite. If a new Internet startup needed to be prepared to defend against countless lawsuits on account of its users’ speech, startups would never get the investment necessary to . Changes to Section 230 would not bring Facebook to heel. Facebook will be able to afford the lawyers, the staffing, or whatever other costs that change would bring. You know who would not? Any service trying to compete with Facebook. This may be why to Section 230.So while many people rightly are concerned with the power of companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google, the uproar around Section 230 is misplaced. that is the problem. It’s oligopoly.Billions of people use Facebook and Google every month. Their reach is larger than the population of most countries. There are two downsides to large size: first, it is to have transparent and equitable terms of service consistently enforced at that size. Second, because these are not bespoke services catering to specific needs and wants of users, size is their value. It’s what their ad services is selling. It’s also why it’s such a big deal when accounts are lost.People should be able to seek out the platform that works for them. The one that, say, puts a premium on fighting harassment. Or wants to be . Or makes promises about privacy. Or, yes, claims to be about “free speech.” It should not be an obligation to be on any platform in order to participate in society. Yet many small businesses and individuals feel like they do not have a choice. That if they are not on Facebook or Google, they may as well not exist.A on CNN about the implosion of the alt-right pointed out that hateful rhetoric lost steam once it was only on platforms where everyone agreed with it. There were no journalists there to give them airtime or column inches. There were no “libs” to “own,” so it sputtered out.Many tech companies have operated under the assumption that the only important metric is growth. Start-ups burn money on growing as large as they can as fast as they can, often with the goal of being bought by one of the Big Tech companies. Big Tech has encouraged this by ramping up so that no company ever becomes a true threat to them, in what is known as the “.”Instead of changing Section 230, we need a change in antitrust law and enforcement. We need of mergers and acquisitions—it’s a good sign that the proposed . We need new ways of thinking about the harm done by companies—not just whether they are making us pay too much. Facebook and Google are free, so perhaps we should consider privacy harms, workers’ rights harms, or harms to our ability to repair or truly own our digital media or technology. We need to punish companies who claim they will not commingle our data when they buy new services and then . We need to be concerned with , and give everyone a private right of action for privacy harms, rather than make companies liable for the speech of its users.And where the badness of these companies is inextricably linked to their bigness, we need to explore ways to break them up. But, as the long list of other issues listed above attests, even that is only part of the solution.Mostly, what we need to understand is that there is no single change to the law that will fix Big Tech. It’s much more complicated than Section 230. It’s more complicated than just breaking these companies up. We need to change the entire ecosystem that Big Tech has manipulated to protect its power. And it starts with competition, not Section 230.Share ItIn response to the very real pressures that online news outlets are facing, Congress continues to believe the very flawed Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA) is a magic solution. It is not. In fact, it is actively dangerous. And there’s a available....In May, Senators Mike Lee, Amy Klobuchar, Ted Cruz, and Richard Blumenthal introduced the “.” The bill, also called the “Digital Advertising Act” or just “DAA” for short, is an ambitious attempt to regulate, and even break up, the biggest online advertising companies...Westlaw, the world’s largest legal research service, is very likely to face antitrust liability. A federal court has ruled that ROSS Intelligence, a tiny rival offering new research tools (which Westlaw forced out of business with a copyright infringement suit) could proceed with claims that Westlaw uses exclusionary and anticompetitive...In December, 2020, Apple did something insanely great. They changed how iOS, their mobile operating system, handled users’ privacy preferences, so that owners of iPhones and other iOS devices could indicate that they don’t want to be tracked by any of the apps on their devices. If they did, Apple...The California Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee will soon be the first to consider new and terrible amendments to Assemblymember Quirk-Silva’s A.B. 2749—which is backed by AT&amp;T and other telecommunications interests. The legislation would prohibit the state from implementing affordable broadband rules for broadband companies receiving state subsidies as...The state of California is primed to bring 21st-century fiber access at affordable rates to every Californian. Last year’s means every California community has the resources available to chart a long-term course toward building fiber networks. The Department...There is a lot to appreciate in the recently published “Notice of Funding Opportunity” (NOFO) by the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA). It is arguably the first federal government proposal that seeks to promote infrastructure policies focused on the future, rather than the usual subsidizing “good enough...Imagine if your boss made up hundreds of petty rules and refused to disclose them, but every week, your pay was docked based on how many of those rules you broke. When you’re an online creator and your “boss” is a giant social media platform, that’s exactly how your compensation...The European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) is a proposal for bringing competition and fairness back to online platform markets. It just cleared a major hurdle on the way to becoming law in the EU as the European Parliament and the Council, representing the member states, reached a ...The European Union’s (DMA) allows new messaging services to demand interoperability (the ability to exchange messages) from the internet's largest messaging services (like WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and iMessage). Interoperability is an to promote competition and prevent monopolists from shutting down user-empowering innovation. But...Share It

Email updates on news, actions,and events in your area.DEEPLINKS BLOGShare ItAs we continue to hear calls to repeal or change Section 230, it appears that many people have conflated a law that affects the tech giants (among many others) with Big Tech as a whole. Section 230 is not a gift to Big Tech, nor is repealing it a panacea for the problems Big Tech is causing—to the contrary repealing it will only exacerbate those problems. The thing you hate is not 230. It’s lack of competition.Section 230 stands for the simple principle that the party responsible for unlawful speech online is the...

public

Katharine Trendacosta

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

It’s Not 230 You Hate, It’s Oligopolies

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS