Section 230 Isn’t The Problem: Debating The Law On The Majority Report
from the we're-doing-this-on-a-site-enabled-by-230 dept
Section 230 remains one of the most misunderstood laws in America, and that misunderstanding keeps producing policy proposals that would make the internet worse, not better. Last year, I wrote a lengthy response to reporter Brian Reed’s claims about Section 230, and this week Sam Seder brought us both onto The Majority Report to hash it out directly for over an hour.
The format was conversational rather than structured, which means some points didn’t get as cleanly laid out as they would in a written piece. But the back-and-forth surfaced some of the real underlying disagreements about what people think 230 does versus what it actually does, and I think that makes it worth the watch. The discussion kicks off around the 30-minute mark.
Thanks to Sam and Emma for having me on, and to Brian for the discussion.
I stand by the larger point I keep trying to make: even if I agree that there are elements of the present internet I dislike, removing or reforming Section 230 will almost certainly make all of those things worse, not better. Without 230’s protections, the compliance costs alone would further entrench the biggest platforms while crushing any smaller competitor or new entrant that might actually offer users something better. People overindex on 230 as “the cause” of everything bad online, when it’s not what’s actually responsible—and that misdiagnosis leads to policy proposals that would deepen the very problems they claim to solve. It still strikes me as odd that 230 is the one law everyone is fixated on when there are far more deserving targets: the CFAA, the DMCA, patent law, and the continued absence of meaningful privacy legislation.
Filed Under: brian reed, majority report, sam seder, section 230
Comments on “Section 230 Isn’t The Problem: Debating The Law On The Majority Report”
i hope it reaches some people. I’ll definitely give it a watch.
It makes sense when you think about it, I think? The fact that it’s unconditional (yes, with caveats about third party speech, civil vs criminal, but you know what i mean), doesn’t line up with people’s intuition (in particular, non-online stuff), is broadly applied to issues people care about, and the text itself is short.
Like yeah, the DMCA has problems, but you kind of have to be in the weeds, otherwise it more or less looks like what people’s intuitions expect a copyright law to do. To get the same sort of attention, it’d have to be like if it didn’t have an appeal process at all. People can latch onto that factoid pretty easily.
Good or bad aside, feature-wise it’s designed in a way that is memetic.
Re:
The DMCA’s worst problem is one of its most known functions: the notice-and-takedown system that effectively routes around the First Amendment and due process.
The guy on the right of the screen seemed really desperate to throw every piece of misleading anti-230 propaganda at the wall.