Congress is considering blowing up the Internet law

Face the liability shield for online platforms Article 230 Another round of attack at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Wednesday, but this time with two different undercurrents complicating the conversation. He was one An unprecedented wave of ongoing legal challenges to the scope of the law, and the second was a growing bipartisan concern about government oversight.

“Section 230 is not one of the Ten Commandments,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) said in his opening remarks. “The idea that we can’t touch it, or else Internet freedom will be burned, is preposterous.” Senators Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) introduced a bill to Sunset section 230 Just as the law is 30 years old, other proposals seek to narrow its scope.

Section 230 protects social media platforms, newspaper comment sections, and other online forums from liability for content posted by their users, and protects the platforms if they choose to limit or remove that content. It’s central to many online services, but critics believe its protections are too sprawling and outdated for massively successful big tech companies. The debate at this hearing focused mostly on two issues: harm to children and the alleged over-policing of conservative content.

The background was a The last trial in Los Angeles Jurors are now deliberating whether Instagram and YouTube were designed in ways that harmed a young plaintiff, and whether some design decisions fall outside the protections of Section 230. Matthew Bergman, whose legal center for social media victims led the product liability model in social media lawsuits, testified before the committee with parents sitting behind him holding photos of their children who died after suffering online harms.

Bergman said he does not support a complete repeal of Section 230, but while the product liability lawsuit plays out in court, Congress could help their case by making clear that the law is not intended to protect platforms’ design decisions. Some lawmakers questioned whether new laws were needed for families like Bergman’s clients to prevail, or whether cases like his showed that courts could operate under existing law. If they wait for the courts to decide, “more children will die,” Bergman said.

Other highlights of the hearing included widespread awareness of the dangers of government censorship and the potential to curb freedom of expression online, including through coercive threats or deception. Schatz praised the leadership of Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who has attacked the Biden administration for gerrymandering but also criticized the FCC chairman. Brendan Carr’s threats to broadcasters and Proposed legislation To address oversight. Schatz said he is concerned about the Biden administration’s approach to misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic, which has included urging social media companies to remove posts they make. He said: “It is no longer theoretical that the door swings both ways in Washington, and this will bite us all in the ass and we must fix it.”

Cruz disagrees with his colleagues who want to repeal Section 230 entirely, believing it will incentivize tech platforms “to engage in more oversight to protect themselves from litigation.” However, he said, “We have to consider whether reform of Section 230 is necessary to encourage more online expression and stop censorship of Big Tech companies.”

Tensions erupted when Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) sparred with one witness, the director of platform regulation at Stanford Law School, Daphne Keller. In his previous position as Missouri attorney general, Schmitt unsuccessfully sued the Biden administration over its alleged pressure on social media companies over misinformation about the coronavirus and the election. Schmidt targeted Keller because of her connection to Stanford University, whose Internet Observatory was affiliated Effectively disassemble it After facing sustained attacks from the right over her work to identify disinformation in elections.

Earlier in the hearing, Keller said she “didn’t like” the pressure from Biden administration officials, but the lawsuit failed to provide evidence that the government pushed the platforms to remove the posts. Keller said that led to a “problematic” Supreme Court ruling that will make it difficult for “genuine future victims of deception” to get to court. But she also said the current administration, including actions taken by Carr, helped usher in an era of “unprecedented gravity in my lifetime.”

However, Keller disputed that the Stanford Internet Observatory had a “role with the Biden administration” for reporting content “that does not align with the viewpoint of the Biden administration,” as Schmidt claimed. She said her colleagues “are exercising their First Amendment rights to talk to the government and say what they think should happen.”

When Keller added that she was not involved in the conversations between her colleagues and the Biden administration, Schmidt responded, saying: “You can read all about it in Missouri v. BidenThe lawsuit was filed with the Supreme Court.”

“The one you lost?” Keller shot back. (Schmidt explained that the matter was returned to the lower court.)

Some witnesses suggested alternatives to removing or changing Section 230. Nadine Freed Johnson, policy director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, suggested passing privacy protections, adding social networking interoperability requirements, and expanding researchers’ access to platforms, saying this could prevent companies from using personal data to connect users and provide more insight into how platforms work.

The hearing briefly addressed new regulatory questions raised by Silicon Valley’s latest focus: generative artificial intelligence. Brad Carson, president of Americans for Responsible Innovation, said Section 230 should not protect AI outputs and warned against preempting AI laws that could rein in a fast-growing industry, criticizing the policy supported by some Republicans. Including Cruz. Cruz also put forward Take it lawa law that requires platforms to remove reported non-consensual intimate images, whether real or generated by artificial intelligence, as an example of “targeted legislation” that avoids amending Section 230.

No matter how much pressure Congress puts on platforms to add guardrails, Cruz acknowledged that kids will look for ways to get around them. After taking his 14-year-old daughter’s phone as punishment, he recalled during the hearing that his wife received an email from Verizon that “didn’t make any sense.” The daughter soon admitted to removing the SIM card from her phone before handing it over and using it in a regular phone. “I was really upset and proud at the same time,” Cruz said. “It shows how absolutely superior parents are at trying to keep up with teens with these issues.”