Josh Hawley Introduces His Latest Attack On Section 230

from the collect-them-all dept

Guys, I'm beginning to get the feeling that Senator Josh Hawley doesn't like Section 230. I mean, beyond creating a laughably inaccurate and misleading "True History of Section 230," Hawley has now introduced at least four bills to modify or end Section 230. Perhaps if he introduces 10 he'll get a free one. His latest, introduced last week would remove Section 230 for any internet company that has "behavioral advertising." Now I've been skeptical of the value of behavioral advertising in many cases, but this new bill is absurd.

Basically what the bill would do is say that any site that uses behavioral advertising loses 230 protections:

An advertisement server shall be held liable for any claim brought against a covered provider because of the application of subparagraph (B) if, after the covered provider directs the advertisement server not to serve or deliver behavioral advertising to users of the interactive computer service described in subparagraph (A)(iii)(I)(aa) provided by the covered provider (or if the advertisement server fails to provide reasonably accessible means to receive that direction from the covered provider), the covered provider unknowingly takes the action described in subparagraph (B)(i) because of an action taken by the advertisement server, including the failure of the advertisement server to provide the covered provider with a conspicuous disclosure regarding the category of advertisements to be displayed.’’.

Because all bills need to have terrible acronyms, this one is the Behavioral Advertising Decisions Are Downgrading Services Act -- or the BAD ADS Act.

No matter what you think of behavioral ads -- and again, I think they're generally quite lame and don't work nearly as well as people pretend -- the structure of this bill seems absurd. Why should 230 protections have anything to do with what kind of advertising model you use? What does one have to do with another? And what job is it of Congress to change whether or not you're protected from liability of 3rd party speech based on what kind of business model you use?

Again, this just seems like yet another example of Josh Hawley (who pretends to be a "small government" Republican) seemingly wanting to be the product manager for the internet. He doesn't like Section 230. He doesn't like behavioral advertising. So, no problem, as a Senator, he moves to outlaw them. Why? Because he doesn't like them. This seems like the kind of big government intrusions into private business that Hawley used to scream about.

Of course, being in the Senate, rather than actually working for a living as a product manager, means that Hawley doesn't have to deal with (or care about) the inevitable fallout from any such change to the law. It would almost certainly harm smaller companies which would be much more limited in what kinds of advertising they could use to support their own sites. As someone who would love to remove all behavioral advertising from our own site (and have tried to multiple times), we've found that the market just isn't there for non-behavioral ads right now. That means it would likely dry up revenue for a ton of sites. Google and Facebook could figure out ways to deal with it. Everyone else? Who knows.

There are, of course, also significant Constitutional questions about this. Why should liability for 3rd party content depend on what kind of business model your site uses? The two seem wholly disconnected, and it seems that this bill could be seen as an attack on free speech and free enterprise (both things Hawley pretends to support). As with many Hawley bills, this one appears to be mostly for show, to appeal to his base of ignorant people who think there's a culture war going on against "big tech" that plays out only by attacking Section 230.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: advertising, behavioral ads, behavioral advertising, josh hawley, section 230, targeted advertising


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 4 Aug 2020 @ 1:43pm

    Hawley and Sec. 230 of the CDA

    Guys, I'm beginning to get the feeling that Senator Josh Hawley doesn't like Section 230.

    Geez, Mike, ya think?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Kitsune106d@hotmail.com, 4 Aug 2020 @ 2:03pm

    Hmmmm

    One test I use for any GOP suggestion is,

    "If Obama did it, would they complain about it"

    And the answer right now is yes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 4 Aug 2020 @ 2:25pm

    Like having an alarm where the default is 'going off'

    While I'm usually a big fan of the 'turnabout is fair play' test in this case I'm not sure how useful it is given that the bar is low enough that 'wearing the wrong color suit' hits it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. icon
    crinisen (profile), 4 Aug 2020 @ 2:40pm

    Who cares about the Constitution, it only applies to lesser gods

    There are, of course, also significant Constitutional questions about this. Why should liability for 3rd party content depend on what kind of business model your site uses?

    The Constitution only interferes with his garbage and grand-standing well after the sound-bytes have gone out. Who cares about the impact that will happen before the courts deal with it? By that point he'll probably be back up for reelection, and can rant against liberal judges or something.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Aug 2020 @ 3:06pm

    Why should liability for 3rd party content depend on what kind of business model your site uses?

    “Because I said so, that’s why.” — Josh Hawley, probably

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2020 @ 3:24pm

    It's strange how the republicans the party of small government wants to stifle free speech by imposing
    random regulations on tech company's.
    230 protects free speech for everyone,
    This includes republicans who use forums and comment on various websites like anyone else. And they,ll be quick to complain if some websites
    block users or close down forums due to the laws
    passed by the senate.
    These laws will effect startups more than Google or Facebook who can afford to hire more moderators
    or lawyers to deal with more regulation
    The point of the free market is to allow various
    services to use various types of advertising
    and see what works as long as its legal under
    federal regulations

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. icon
    PaulT (profile), 4 Aug 2020 @ 11:39pm

    Re: Like having an alarm where the default is 'going off'

    Don't forget mustard and lettuce choices. The bar is hardly high there.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Aug 2020 @ 2:29am

    Re: Hmmmm

    "If Obama did it, would they complain about it"

    You do know that includes "breathing", right?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 5 Aug 2020 @ 2:33am

    Re:

    "It's strange how the republicans the party of small government..."

    The GOP hasn't been the party for "small government" since they switched ideological stances with the democrats after the "New Deal".

    What they're really after is this; No government to regulate business. All-in Government to regulate individuals. The current dream scenario of the GOP is to have a government consisting entirely of Hoover's FBI, and an army.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2020 @ 6:05am

    Re: Re:

    What would such a government be called?
    Military junta?

    That would not be acceptable to a majority of the populace and they would revolt. Is this the gop plan?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2020 @ 2:12pm

    Perhaps if he introduces 10 he'll get a free one.

    I thought he gets a free set a steak knives at 10, and a free toaster at 15.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. icon
    nasch (profile), 6 Aug 2020 @ 12:35pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    What would such a government be called?

    How about fascism?

    “Mussolini thought that democracy was a failed system. He thought that liberty of expression and liberty of parties was a sham, and that fascism would organize people under state power,” [professor of History and Italian Studies at New York University Ruth] Ben-Ghiat says.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. icon
    Darkness Of Course (profile), 6 Aug 2020 @ 11:03pm

    Re: Toaster, not a toaster oven.

    That means he can't be the Ellen show to accept it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 7 Aug 2020 @ 6:40am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Nasch nailed it.

    The GOP as such doesn't have a plan. Admittedly the neoconservatives did and yes, that "plan" reeked more than a little bit of fascism.

    The key criteria of fascism, however, are all very much on the openly stated wish list of GOP politicians. More obviously so in recent years because even under GWB no one in the GOP had the chutzpah to go out and call for military assaults - including drone strikes and clusterbombing of protestors - inside american cities.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.