Otherwise Objectionable: How 230 Let US Internet Companies Win
from the a-world-without-230 dept
While politicians from both parties race to dismantle Section 230, we’re missing a crucial part of the story: how this uniquely American law helped US internet companies succeed globally. In the latest episode of Otherwise Objectionable, I explore with legal scholar Anupam Chander what might seem paradoxical — how a domestic liability shield became America’s most successful tech export without a single international treaty.
We discuss how other places regulate the internet, including Europe, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Brazil and more. And how each of their approaches created real burdens — the exact kinds of burdens that Chris Cox and Ron Wyden were trying to avoid while drafting Section 230.
What’s particularly striking is how Section 230 functioned as a kind of incubator. The early freedom from crushing legal uncertainty allowed companies to build services compelling enough that international users demanded access to them, creating pressure on foreign regulators to accommodate these platforms rather than block them entirely. This explains what seems like a contradiction: how platforms built under Section 230’s protection can operate in jurisdictions with much stricter liability regimes. They succeeded not despite Section 230, but because of the head start it provided, reinforcing the idea that Section 230’s biggest value is in protecting smaller, newer platforms.
But this era of American digital success may be fading. As regulations globally become increasingly stringent (with the EU’s Digital Services Act, Australia’s Online Safety Act, and dozens of similar regulatory regimes), we’re witnessing the early stages of internet fragmentation. We discuss how platforms will need to make difficult decisions about which markets to exit when compliance becomes untenable.
The irony shouldn’t be lost on American legislators rushing to “reform” Section 230: they’re dismantling the very legal framework that made American digital innovation possible, just as the rest of the world is recognizing — through increasingly desperate regulatory measures — how effective it was.
Filed Under: anupam chander, australia, brazil, eu, france, germany, intermediary liability, japan, otherwise objectionable, section 230, south korea


Comments on “Otherwise Objectionable: How 230 Let US Internet Companies Win”
Read Project 2025. They don’t want us to be leaders in anything.
Brazil’s Actions were Good, Actually
Is the part about Brazil taking Elon Musk to task actually treating Brazil’s actions as a bad thing? Come on now.
Re:
I mean, yes, because it is. We said so at the time:
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/08/29/elons-standoff-with-brazil-reveals-hypocrisy-overreach-by-both-sides/
A country banning an entire website because they won’t remove content ordered by the government to be censored… is, in fact, bad.
Same reason we think the US banning TikTok was bad (and unconstitutional).
Banning websites is bad.
Re: Re:
Brazil banned X because they were doing nothing about accounts that were supportive of Bolsonaro and his fascist coup attempt, and agitating for more of that. Taking fascists to task and deplatforming fascism is good. It’s not “censorship”. I think that this last election here in the U.S., and what’s been going on these last few months, has proven that. Brazil is doing a much better job of defending its democracy and holding wannabe dictators to account than we ever did.
Re: Re: Re: banning fascist speech (mind changed)
The current US administration has somewhat changed my mind on 100% free speech. The US Constitution is so full of loop holes. The voting populace is so prone to propaganda [from all sources Conservative, Liberal, and foreign].
In the future, all web services will be in Iceland.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Another episode to remind me how hopeless the future of the internet-and democracy as a result- feels.
Re:
Go take your misery elsewhere and don’t come around here no more.