Conservatives have long claimed, often rightfully so, that big tech is silencing their voices. As a remedy, they have sought an overhaul of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the foundation of the modern internet. But experts are warning that attempts to persuade the Supreme Court to roll back the liability protections in Section 230 enjoyed by internet platforms are ill-advised.
Yesterday, at an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) press briefing in advance of the oral arguments in Google v. Gonzalez and Twitter v. Taamneh, both dealing with Section 230, a panel of tech policy specialties and lawyers convincingly argued that rulings in favor of the petitioners could have dire consequences for the Right.
Section 230 shields internet platforms from being held accountable as the publisher or speaker of content created by their users, which means that if a user posts a libelous comment, the responsibility for the content lies with the author, not the website hosting it. This arrangement exists because platforms function as massive public forums where content moderators can’t police everything. But the petitioners in Gonzalez and Taamneh argue that websites can be held liable for the algorithms they use to curate and present content. Shane Tews, a senior fellow at AEI, disagrees.
“Narrowing Section 230 will create an appetite for greater censorship, resulting in more, not less, content moderation. More moderation means curtailing access to information and freedom of expression.”
Tews is correct. If Section 230 is circumscribed in either Gonzalez or Taamneh, social media companies will censor conservative speech more, not less. If Silicon Valley knows it can be held liable for algorithms that promote speech with even the slightest intonation of incitement or defamation, the tech firms already predisposed to fear conservative views will invariably clamp down. Those pushing for Section 230 reform ought to tread lightly.