Senators revive efforts to strip tech companies of key legal protection

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Hill

04/02/25 6:00 AM ET


Senators from both sides of the aisle are reigniting efforts to crawl back technology companies’ legal immunities with hopes bipartisan support in Congress could push the bill across the finish line this session and gain the backing of President Trump.

Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are expected to soon introduce a bill to sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in what would be one of the first bipartisan pushes in years to sunset the long-contested liability shield.

Pressure is ramping up on lawmakers, who failed to pass most related legislation last session despite major lobbying efforts from tech safety groups and families hoping to hold technology companies accountable for social media harms, specifically on young children. “The damage being done every year just gets worse,” Graham told The Hill. “There’s more support from the public [this session], the parents and grandparents feel helpless.”

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, often dubbed as the 26 words that created the internet, largely protects technology companies from being held legally responsible for third party or user consent. The law was passed in 1996, years ahead of the social media boom that transformed the internet over the next three decades.

Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5225737-senators-revive-efforts-to-strip-tech-companies-of-key-legal-protection/

[underpants]

1. Snapshot of our country - MAGA/Fox News think 230 is a restriction on free speech

Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2025, 11:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Before Elon bought Twitter and Zuck tried to plead his way into oligarch protection, it was a big talking point with them. Trump used to talk about it all the time.

Completely opposite of what it is.

[et tu]

3. they have perfected

double think and double speak-
p2025 on techno steroids

[Eugene]

2. Eliminating Section 230 is yet another Project 2025 deliverable under "reforming" the FCC and reining in big tech.

From Project 2025: "FCC REFORM", pages 847–850.

[ancianita]

8. If ANY bill is referenced in Proj. 2025, neither Durbin nor ANY Democrat should sponsor. Bipartisanship

should do The People some good, and not exist to compromise 1A rights.
This bill appeases RW oligarch big money censors and should never see the light of day.

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/

[andym]

4. Without this protection, close censorship of content would surely result.

As no tech company would take a chance that anything remotely controversial would be allowed to be posted.

[delisen]

5. Why is Dick Durbin sponsoring this? nt

[ancianita]

6. Because he wants to pass SOMETHING that's bipartisan. He's is doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

Picking on Section 230 is dumb, and it's just the thing that appeases power hungry rethugs so that Trump can go after platforms for 3rd party content. It's an unwise attempt at bipartisanship.

[ancianita]

7. From TechdirtTo Durbin & Graham: "Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 ...

Of The Communications Decency Act
from the duty-calls dept
Tue, Jun 23rd 2020 09:26am - Mike Masnick

... Because if you’re wrong about 230, there’s a damn good chance you’re wrong about the 1st Amendment too.

While this may all feel kind of mean, it’s not meant to be. Unless you’re ... purposefully saying wrong things about Section 230, like Senator Ted Cruz or Rep. Nancy Pelosi (being wrong about 230 is bipartisan). For them, it’s meant to be mean.
For you, let’s just assume you made an honest mistake — perhaps because deliberately wrong people like Ted Cruz and Nancy Pelosi steered you wrong. So let’s correct that.

Before we get into the specifics, I will suggest that you just read the law, because it seems that many people who are making these mistakes seem to have never read it. ...
If you’re in a rush, just jump to part (c), entitled Protection for ?Good Samaritan? blocking and screening of offensive material, because that’s the only part of the law that actually matters...
if you’re in a real rush, just read Section (c)(1), which is only 26 words, and is the part that basically every single court decision (and there have been many) has relied on....

If you said “Once a company like that starts moderating content, it’s no longer a platform, but a publisher”
I regret to inform you that you are wrong. I know that you’ve likely heard this from someone else — perhaps even someone respected — but it’s just not true. The law says no such thing. Again, I encourage you to read it. The law does distinguish between “interactive computer services” and “information content providers,” but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying “platform” or “publisher.” There is no “certification” or “decision” that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else.

If you said “Because of Section 230, websites have no incentive to moderate!”

You are wrong. If you reformulated that statement to say that “Section 230 itself provides no incentives to moderate” then you’d be less wrong, but still wrong.
First, though, let’s dispense with the idea that thanks to Section 230, sites have no incentive to moderate. Find me a website that doesn’t moderate. Go on. I’ll wait. Lots of people say things like one of the “chans” or Gab or some other site like that, but all of those actually do moderate.
There’s a reason that all such websites do moderate, even those that strike a “free speech” pose: (1) because other laws require at least some level of moderation (e.g., copyright laws and laws against child porn), and
(2) more importantly, with no moderation, a platform fills up with spam, abuse, harassment, and just all sorts of garbage that make it a very unenjoyable place to spend your internet time.

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/

Thought I'd throw this in because I'm surprised to see this rear its head again.
And because Durbin is making a big mistake just to look like the Senate is doing SOMETHING hailed as bipartisan. Booker should definitely not go in for this.