SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Internet defenders are warning against ill-advised changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, one of the most important guarantors of internet freedom. (Photo: Getty stock)
Leading Digital Rights Group Warns Section 230 Reform Bill Will Boost Big Tech While Crushing Smaller Sites
"This bill, as written, would have enormous unintended consequences for human rights and freedom of expression," warned Fight for the Future's Evan Greer.
Feb 04, 2021
A leading digital rights group on Friday sounded the alarm on a bill introduced by Senate Democrats aimed at reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, warning that although well-intentioned, the measure would "have enormous unintended consequences" that would boost the power of Big Tech at the expense of smaller websites and online freedom.
"It would solidify the monopoly power of the largest tech companies like Facebook and Google while crushing small sites and rendering the Internet almost completely unusable for activism and organizing."
--Evan Greer,
Fight for the Future
The SAFE TECH Act (pdf)--introduced by Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.)--changes key language in Section 230, which largely protects websites, including social media platforms, from being held legally liable for content posted by third-party users. The new language proposed by the senators would no longer extend protection when payment is involved.
"For years, Section 230 provided a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card to platform companies as their sites are openly and repeatedly used by bad actors to cause damage and injury," Warner explained in a series of tweets promoting the new bill. "The SAFE TECH Act doesn't interfere with free speech--it's about allowing these platforms to finally be held accountable for harmful, often criminal behavior enabled by their platforms to which they have turned a blind eye for too long."
Under former President Donald Trump, Section 230 was in the administration's crosshairs, as social media companies policed or blocked the president's false, misleading, and inflammatory content. Democrats--including now-President Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential campaign--also proposed repealing or significantly modifying Section 230, not because it restricted free speech but rather because it allowed the dissemination of lies and incitement.
Section 230 came under increased scrutiny in the wake of the deadly January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by right-wing extremists, many of whom used social media to foment and organize the insurrection.
Last week, a coalition of internet defenders cautioned lawmakers against responding to the Capitol attack by making ill-advised changes to Section 230. However, Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, said on Friday that the SAFE TECH Act does just that.
"We absolutely agree that Congress needs to take meaningful action to address the real world harm being done by Big Tech companies' surveillance capitalist business models," Greer said in a statement. "But unfortunately this bill, as written, would have enormous unintended consequences for human rights and freedom of expression. It creates a huge carveout in Section 230 that impacts not only advertising but essentially all paid services, such as web hosting and CDNs, as well as small services like Patreon, Bandcamp, and Etsy."
Greer continued:
While it appears the bill's sponsors intended to make targeted changes to Section 230, as written this bill essentially guts Section 230. It would solidify the monopoly power of the largest tech companies like Facebook and Google while crushing small sites and rendering the internet almost completely unusable for activism and organizing. We urge lawmakers to pass the SAFE Sex Worker[s] Study Act to investigate the harm done by SESTA/FOSTA, and hold hearings about the potential human rights and civil liberties implications of changing Section 230 before advancing legislation that could do tremendous harm.
"We hope to work with the bill's sponsors and supporters to work toward meaningful policy changes to hold Big Tech companies accountable for their role in undermining democracy and basic rights," added Greer. "We urge swift action on measures such as strong data privacy legislation and enforcement of antitrust and civil rights laws."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
fight for the futureus senatehuman rightsmazie hironojan 6 insurrectioncorporate powerjoe bidentrumpismtechnologygooglefacebookamy klobuchar
A leading digital rights group on Friday sounded the alarm on a bill introduced by Senate Democrats aimed at reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, warning that although well-intentioned, the measure would "have enormous unintended consequences" that would boost the power of Big Tech at the expense of smaller websites and online freedom.
"It would solidify the monopoly power of the largest tech companies like Facebook and Google while crushing small sites and rendering the Internet almost completely unusable for activism and organizing."
--Evan Greer,
Fight for the Future
The SAFE TECH Act (pdf)--introduced by Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.)--changes key language in Section 230, which largely protects websites, including social media platforms, from being held legally liable for content posted by third-party users. The new language proposed by the senators would no longer extend protection when payment is involved.
"For years, Section 230 provided a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card to platform companies as their sites are openly and repeatedly used by bad actors to cause damage and injury," Warner explained in a series of tweets promoting the new bill. "The SAFE TECH Act doesn't interfere with free speech--it's about allowing these platforms to finally be held accountable for harmful, often criminal behavior enabled by their platforms to which they have turned a blind eye for too long."
Under former President Donald Trump, Section 230 was in the administration's crosshairs, as social media companies policed or blocked the president's false, misleading, and inflammatory content. Democrats--including now-President Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential campaign--also proposed repealing or significantly modifying Section 230, not because it restricted free speech but rather because it allowed the dissemination of lies and incitement.
Section 230 came under increased scrutiny in the wake of the deadly January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by right-wing extremists, many of whom used social media to foment and organize the insurrection.
Last week, a coalition of internet defenders cautioned lawmakers against responding to the Capitol attack by making ill-advised changes to Section 230. However, Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, said on Friday that the SAFE TECH Act does just that.
"We absolutely agree that Congress needs to take meaningful action to address the real world harm being done by Big Tech companies' surveillance capitalist business models," Greer said in a statement. "But unfortunately this bill, as written, would have enormous unintended consequences for human rights and freedom of expression. It creates a huge carveout in Section 230 that impacts not only advertising but essentially all paid services, such as web hosting and CDNs, as well as small services like Patreon, Bandcamp, and Etsy."
Greer continued:
While it appears the bill's sponsors intended to make targeted changes to Section 230, as written this bill essentially guts Section 230. It would solidify the monopoly power of the largest tech companies like Facebook and Google while crushing small sites and rendering the internet almost completely unusable for activism and organizing. We urge lawmakers to pass the SAFE Sex Worker[s] Study Act to investigate the harm done by SESTA/FOSTA, and hold hearings about the potential human rights and civil liberties implications of changing Section 230 before advancing legislation that could do tremendous harm.
"We hope to work with the bill's sponsors and supporters to work toward meaningful policy changes to hold Big Tech companies accountable for their role in undermining democracy and basic rights," added Greer. "We urge swift action on measures such as strong data privacy legislation and enforcement of antitrust and civil rights laws."
A leading digital rights group on Friday sounded the alarm on a bill introduced by Senate Democrats aimed at reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, warning that although well-intentioned, the measure would "have enormous unintended consequences" that would boost the power of Big Tech at the expense of smaller websites and online freedom.
"It would solidify the monopoly power of the largest tech companies like Facebook and Google while crushing small sites and rendering the Internet almost completely unusable for activism and organizing."
--Evan Greer,
Fight for the Future
The SAFE TECH Act (pdf)--introduced by Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.)--changes key language in Section 230, which largely protects websites, including social media platforms, from being held legally liable for content posted by third-party users. The new language proposed by the senators would no longer extend protection when payment is involved.
"For years, Section 230 provided a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card to platform companies as their sites are openly and repeatedly used by bad actors to cause damage and injury," Warner explained in a series of tweets promoting the new bill. "The SAFE TECH Act doesn't interfere with free speech--it's about allowing these platforms to finally be held accountable for harmful, often criminal behavior enabled by their platforms to which they have turned a blind eye for too long."
Under former President Donald Trump, Section 230 was in the administration's crosshairs, as social media companies policed or blocked the president's false, misleading, and inflammatory content. Democrats--including now-President Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential campaign--also proposed repealing or significantly modifying Section 230, not because it restricted free speech but rather because it allowed the dissemination of lies and incitement.
Section 230 came under increased scrutiny in the wake of the deadly January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by right-wing extremists, many of whom used social media to foment and organize the insurrection.
Last week, a coalition of internet defenders cautioned lawmakers against responding to the Capitol attack by making ill-advised changes to Section 230. However, Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, said on Friday that the SAFE TECH Act does just that.
"We absolutely agree that Congress needs to take meaningful action to address the real world harm being done by Big Tech companies' surveillance capitalist business models," Greer said in a statement. "But unfortunately this bill, as written, would have enormous unintended consequences for human rights and freedom of expression. It creates a huge carveout in Section 230 that impacts not only advertising but essentially all paid services, such as web hosting and CDNs, as well as small services like Patreon, Bandcamp, and Etsy."
Greer continued:
While it appears the bill's sponsors intended to make targeted changes to Section 230, as written this bill essentially guts Section 230. It would solidify the monopoly power of the largest tech companies like Facebook and Google while crushing small sites and rendering the internet almost completely unusable for activism and organizing. We urge lawmakers to pass the SAFE Sex Worker[s] Study Act to investigate the harm done by SESTA/FOSTA, and hold hearings about the potential human rights and civil liberties implications of changing Section 230 before advancing legislation that could do tremendous harm.
"We hope to work with the bill's sponsors and supporters to work toward meaningful policy changes to hold Big Tech companies accountable for their role in undermining democracy and basic rights," added Greer. "We urge swift action on measures such as strong data privacy legislation and enforcement of antitrust and civil rights laws."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.