Donate
Playing Politics with Section 230 Makes the Internet Weaker, Not Stronger Thumbnail
‹ Back
Internet Way of Networking 29 May 2020

Playing Politics with Section 230 Makes the Internet Weaker, Not Stronger

Konstantinos Komaitis
By Konstantinos KomaitisSenior Director, Policy Strategy and Development

This opinion piece was originally published in The Hill.

Thursday the president of the United States signed an executive order that aims to address the liability regime of social media companies. A wide variety of reports have highlighted the problems with this move, but there is one problem that we find especially troubling: the danger of politicizing what is fundamentally a legal debate around party lines.

The president needs to stay out of this debate.

The Internet and politics have always had an awkward relationship. There have been numerous attempts to bring the Internet into mainstream politics over the years, most of which have been unsuccessful. The main reason is that the Internet is not a static “thing,” but a model for how networks and computers can interconnect through voluntary collaboration. A key characteristic of this model is that it’s decentralized, which means it doesn’t have a central point of control that dictates how the Internet should evolve. There is no switch that one can turn on and off, and as soon as policymakers or regulators try to impose one they inevitably chip away at the Internet itself. This characteristic has always been its most powerful asset, and the reason it has been an infinite source of innovation and growth – from the Web to ever-evolving smart devices, homes, etc. This lack of central control is a feature of the Internet, not a bug!

Trump’s Social Media Executive Order: Legal, Ethical, Smart?
In the wake of the United States Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, the Internet Society will host a virtual event focused on the broader issue of intermediary liability. Join experts as they discuss what it means for the future of speech and platforms online. Register for the event, which takes place Tuesday, June 9th at 1400 ET!

Most of the early legal frameworks that have been implemented in the Internet reflect this apolitical premise, albeit at different levels and to different degrees. But there is really no other law that does this as gracefully as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the United States, which undergirds “intermediary liability” online.

Online intermediary liability protection first emerged in the United States in 1995 as a policy discussion regarding the scope of responsibility intermediaries should have. At the time, there was no Facebook or Twitter, so the law was aimed at services like CompuServe, Prodigy, and AOL. However, it set the tone for all future services and would later be exported to the world as one of the most positive Internet legal developments. The question was simple: should intermediaries be liable for content posted using their services or for actions performed by third parties, i.e. their users?

This question would fundamentally shape the future of the Internet. It discouraged attempts of centralized control because it did not force providers to perform functions they were never originally supposed to do. Similar to how telecommunications services are not responsible for the things phone users say over the phone, it was clear that online intermediaries and service providers would need similar commonsense restrictions on what they could be liable for.

Immunity from liability ensures a level playing field and provides autonomy to a diverse set of actors to perform their intended functions. In this context, Section 230 provided predictability in the Internet’s highly unpredictable environment. No one can predict the next innovation; the Internet is designed this way. The Internet’s highly unpredictable environment can only unfold to its full potential if it operates within a legal framework that is obvious in its intention and unsurprising in its outcomes. Section 230 does this. Politicizing it would reverse years of such predictability and could place the Internet’s future potential in jeopardy.

With this in mind, one can see how the executive order is problematic, setting in motion a dangerous precedent both for the Internet and speech. The problem is that a lot of the provisions in this order appear to be what Stanford’s Director of Intermediary Liability, Daphne Keller, calls “atmospheric” – politically driven questions that should not be part of the legal debate related to the scope of intermediary liability protections. They constitute a distraction, which could cause a series of unintended consequences for the evolution of the Internet.

While conversations about the evolving scope of Section 230 are healthy, they should not be based on fashionable political motivations. Section 230 has a historical track record of promoting innovation and creativity online. By separating it from partisan politics, we can ensure that these benefits are retained.


Image by Leon Seibert via Unsplash

‹ Back

Disclaimer: Viewpoints expressed in this post are those of the author and may or may not reflect official Internet Society positions.

Related articles

On The Way To The G7 ICT Ministers' Meeting In Japan: Multistakeholder approaches needed to address Internet security
On The Way To The G7 ICT Ministers' Meeting In Japan: Multistakeholder approaches needed to address Internet security
Improving Technical Security28 April 2016

On The Way To The G7 ICT Ministers’ Meeting In Japan: Multistakeholder approaches needed to address Internet security

This week in Japan I have been invited to address the Multi-Stakeholder Conference that will officially open the G7 ICT...

In Our New Changed World We Need New Tools (Remarks at Next Generation Internet Summit)
In Our New Changed World We Need New Tools (Remarks at Next Generation Internet Summit)
Internet Governance6 June 2017

In Our New Changed World We Need New Tools (Remarks at Next Generation Internet Summit)

On 6 June 2017, Internet Society President & CEO Kathy Brown spoke at the Opening Session of the Next Generation Internet...

IGF 2018: Improvements and a Call for Contributions
IGF 2018: Improvements and a Call for Contributions
Internet Governance24 September 2018

IGF 2018: Improvements and a Call for Contributions

The annual meetings of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) have been consolidated as the main space for discussion and exchange...

Join the conversation with Internet Society members around the world