Explained | Section 230: Why a social media law angers Trump and what it means for us

Source: Reuters

How often are defense budgets tied to what you can say on Facebook and Twitter? And how often are relief payments during a pandemic tied to social media laws? US President Donald Trump and others in the ruling Republican Party have an obscure but vital internet law in their crosshairs, and want to abolish it at any cost. The law in question is pivotal to the internet as we know it, but changes may be needed. Moneycontrol breaks down the issue and explains what is at stake for each party.

Firstly, what is Section 230?

Section 230 is part of the Communications Decency Act, 1996. The Act itself was originally meant to regulate pornography online- criminalising distributing porn to minors and regulating and defining “obscene or indecent” content.

Section 230 - added later on - was aimed at providing immunity to websites hosting user generated content, and in essence, does not hold the platforms legally accountable for content on their platform. It says, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”.

Okay. Why is this important?

This 26-word piece of legislation has defined the internet and social media era. It is part of why Facebook is one of the world’s biggest companies; Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and others host an outsized portion of the world’s conversations and culture- and are not liable for its misuse as per this law.

This is crucial because the dark side of social media- spreading misinformation, propaganda, hate, bigotry, and even selling arms, illegal items, child porn and more- have become apparent in recent years. The unabated growth of social media as a business, and as a part of life- has also thrown spotlight on why it needs to be regulated. Section 230 protects these Facebook, Twitter and others from being liable for possibly harmful content on their platforms.

Why is Trump angry?

Trump and Republicans are of the view that liberal leaning social networks amplify conservative views more than they should, and Republican views are unfairly targeted or clamped down upon by social media firms. And, while Trump has long wanted Facebook and Twitter to be regulated, his ire is increased because Twitter actively classified his tweets as misinformation and hid it behind a warning when Trump kept claiming he won the 2020 US Presidential Elections, although all reliable results showed otherwise. He wants Section 230 repealed.

So, what has Trump said, or done?

“Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to “Big Tech” (the only companies in America that have it - corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity. Our Country can never be safe & secure if we allow it to stand…” he tweeted.

In the next tweet he also threatened to veto the National Defense Authorisation Act (NDAA), a $740 million bill that allocates military funds every year. He followed up on that threat on December 24, and vetoed the bill.

What else?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, on December 30, introduced a new bill- linking $2000 payouts as part of the pandemic relief package to repealing Section 230. The $2000 payout has been in the works for a while, with both parties working on it, and Trump leaning towards approving it, but his grumblings about Section 230 take new significance when defense budgets and pandemic relief for ordinary citizens are linked to this law.

Does Trump have a point?

On social media needing more regulation, yes. That’s something everything across the political spectrum has agreed with in the last few years. With the number of scandals on fake news, data breaches, antitrust, election manipulation, inciting violence and societal angst, it's hard to argue otherwise.

But, a ban on Section 230 goes against the freedom of speech the US and many democracies value, and puts many businesses in danger overnight.

The Wall Street Journal says, “We need to re-evaluate Section 230 in light of today’s very different internet. But, there is one thing we shouldn’t re-evaluate: the provision’s role in supporting and nurturing an open and free marketplace of ideas.”

So, what needs to change?

Many argue that self regulation by the industry- by players coming together to form applicable laws- is a workable option. But, it is essential that the solution involves Big Tech, small and medium internet businesses, and the government. Because in an effort to regulate Big Tech, the ripple effect on small business could be harmful.

For example?

Section 230 covers the internet at large. So it applies to a travel aggregator, restaurant website and food delivery firms as much as anyone else. Can TripAdvisor be held accountable for one misleading review from a customer?

“If website owners are held liable for everything that appears on their platforms, they will have to create systems for reviewing and editing all posted content before it goes up. This is an impossible task. At best it would create an environment that allows only the most limited and inoffensive speech. At worst it would force operators to shut down many social-media sites and drastically limit the ability of private citizens to express views online,” WSJ says.

How does this impact India?

The internet in many ways is one giant blob because everyone across countries is on it, and therefore, regulation in one country is often mirrored by many. For ,instance, in 2016, the European Union introduced the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)- a landmark in regulating internet privacy and how much user data companies can connect.

Many other countries rolled out laws with similar provisions, and today almost every website you visit-across countries- will explicitly ask your permission to accept cookies- which helps companies track a user on the internet. This is because of GDPR.

The outcome of Section 230 could have a serious impact on how India makes its own internet and social media laws. Our digital laws are still in their early days and generally regulation does not keep pace with innovation and technology- which is why antitrust and regulation become big issues once tech companies are themselves big.