Shortly after a crowd of supporters of President Donald Trump broke into the U.S. Capitol last week, his social media accounts were suspended by big tech companies like Twitter and Facebook for their supposed role in inciting violence and spreading misinformation. The incident sparked a renewed debate over Section 230 of the United States’ Communications Decency Act – the controversial part of Internet law that allowed these tech companies to flex their powers and ban the president in the first place.
Over the years, reform of Section 230 has been a bipartisan issue – both Democrats and Republicans have called for it to be amended, if not repealed. President Trump himself has strongly criticized the law, which prevents tech companies from being held responsible for what users post online. President-elect Joe Biden also criticized the law and even proposed to repeal it altogether.
But while the law is widely criticized, most agree that it is essential to ensuring a relatively free, safe and open Internet.
What is Section 230?
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was passed in 1996 and provides Internet companies with legal immunity from content shared on their websites. The act was first introduced to regulate online pornography. Section 230 is an amendment to the law, which holds users accountable for their comments and posts online.
An image showing Donald Trump’s suspended Twitter account. (Image source: AP)
According to the regulation, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service should be treated as an editor or announcer of any information provided by another information content provider.”
This means that online companies, including social media platforms, are not responsible for the content shared on their website by their users. Therefore, if a user posts something illegal on the website, the company is protected from lawsuits. In addition, the regulation also states that private companies have the right to remove content that violates its guidelines and values. Therefore, the big tech companies were within their rights when they decided to suspend Trump’s accounts.
The legislation was drafted by Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden and South Carolina Republican Congressman Chris Cox more than two decades ago to encourage emerging technology companies and protect freedom of expression, enshrined in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The international digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation calls Section 230 “the important law that protects Internet speech”.
What does this have to do with the siege of the Capitol?
Shortly after a violent mob of supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the historic US Capitol building last Wednesday, the finger of guilt was pointed at social media platforms and online forums – where right-wing extremists openly planned the attack by weeks.
Trump supporters left a flag outside the Capitol on Wednesday night, January 6, 2021, in Washington. (AP)
The posts, in which supporters of the president of the United States described how they would break into the Capitol, raised questions about why violent content is generally not regulated on social media sites. Facing a growing reaction, Facebook, Twitter and Google began to strongly crack down on social media users who shared inflammatory content online.
From Google suspending the pro-Trump Parler social media site, to President Trump being banned from almost every major social media platform – the big tech companies have left no stone unturned. The reason they were able to respond to the incident so quickly and fiercely is largely because of Section 230, as it protects these companies from lawsuits in the future.
📣 JOIN NOW 📣: Telegram Channel Explained Express
Why is Section 230 widely criticized?
While the regulation has far-reaching consequences for social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, its critics are quick to point out that it was passed before social media existed in its current form. Political leaders and Internet activists have long called for the law to be updated.
The more conservative critics of the regulation argue that it effectively allows big technologies to participate in politically partisan activities. Republican lawmakers, including Trump, have claimed that platforms like Twitter and Facebook exhibit a clear bias against conservative voices and often abuse the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to censor right-wing users.
On the other hand, some argue that the law allows sites like 4chan and Parler – used by many right-wing extremists – to refrain from moderating hate speech and violent content, regardless of how derogatory or vile it may be.
In an interview with the New York Times last year, President-elect Joe Biden called for the regulation to be “repealed, immediately” as it helped technology companies propagate “falsehoods that they know to be false”. “I, at least, think that we should consider taking [Facebook’s] exemption that they cannot be prosecuted for knowingly engaged in promoting something that is not true, ”he said in a previous interview with CNN.
The sites also faced adverse reactions to the content they chose to moderate. For example, in 2014, Facebook was widely criticized for its inconsistent nudity rules when it took a picture of a mother breastfeeding her premature baby.
Did Trump try to change the law?
In May 2020, President Trump issued an executive order aimed at the legal protection offered to technology companies under Section 230. He took this step after Twitter started labeling his postal vote tweets as disinformation. In response, the president claimed that social media platforms were selectively censoring the content as part of a broader conspiracy to “defraud the election” against him.
Trump’s order required regulators to reevaluate the definition of Section 230 and directed agencies to collect complaints of political bias on social media platforms that could help revoke their legal immunity.
After Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, he took it a step further and called for the regulation to be completely repealed. Last month, he threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an annual defense bill that authorizes billions in military spending, unless Congress agrees to completely repeal Section 23.
“Section 230, which is a US liability protection gift for“ Big Tech ”(the only companies in America that have it – corporate welfare!), Is a serious threat to our National Security and Electoral Integrity. Our country will never be safe and protected if we allow it to remain … ”, Trump tweeted at the end of last month. He added that if “Section 230 very dangerous and unfair is not completely closed as part of [NDAA], I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the bill when sent to the beautiful table of Resolute. “
Trump said Section 230 facilitated the spread of foreign misinformation online. However, members of Congress were quick to applaud Trump, saying the NDAA had little to do with social media companies.