Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, while initially intended to shield online platforms from liability for user-generated content, has had far-reaching and unintended consequences. The effect on the public sphere has been substantial, to say the least. It inadvertently led to the rise of the “advertising” business model, which prioritizes paid access and influence over the dissemination of uniquely valuable information. As a result, we find ourselves immersed in a perpetually competitive society, vying for attention within a polarized social media ecosystem.
One of the key issues stemming from Section 230 is the optimization of content for engagement. Recommender algorithms now mediate our online experiences, prioritizing content that triggers rapid-fire emotions and high-stakes interactions. From an algorithm’s perspective, humans are most engaged when presented with fight-or-flight responses. While this approach may boost user engagement, it hinders thoughtful deliberation between citizens who are supposed to be equals under the law.
Internet platforms relying on Section 230 have disproportionately benefited from the harvesting of personal data without offering appropriate compensation. This economic imbalance is exacerbated by the shifting of liability onto the violated party through takedown notices. The order of events in this process, dictated by Section 230, places an undue burden on individuals to protect their data rights, similar to the difference between opt-in and opt-out consent in privacy. As a result, industries reliant on information, such as local news, have experienced significant decline in economic success and prestige.
Content moderation, often driven by the pursuit of attention and engagement, frequently disregards corporate terms of service. Rules are bent to maximize inflammatory content, which can harm personal and societal well-being. This phenomena, commonly referred to as cancel culture, becomes indistinguishable from censorship. While Section 230 may shield tech companies from legal liability, it enables the amplification of incendiary free speech by bad actors, effectively encouraging mob rule.
One of the widespread sentiments across America is the widespread disillusionment and disdain for tech companies benefiting from Section 230’s liability shield. These companies have managed to position themselves as more than mere carriers while avoiding the responsibilities of publishers. The absence of a sunset clause in Section 230 compounds this issue. The disregard for the potential consequences of maintaining this shield feeds into the notion of self-serving behavior at the expense of the public interest.
A Glimpse of a Post-230 World
While the prospect of removing or amending Section 230 may seem daunting, imagining a world without its protections reveals potential positive effects. Some companies are already taking steps towards a post-230 future. YouTube, for example, is diversifying its income streams, providing creators with alternative options for earning. This voluntary move suggests a transition towards a more publisher-like self-concept. However, other companies that heavily rely on Section 230, like company X, have been experiencing a rapid decline in value.
The Presence of Exceptions: An Indication of Change
It is important to note that there have always been exceptions to Section 230. Certain laws protect private information, granting individuals the option to charge fees on platforms that would otherwise rely on a 230-style business model. These exceptions indicate that a post-230 world would likely lead to the emergence of more alternatives and diverse models.
The unintended consequences of Section 230 extend beyond its initial purpose of shielding online platforms from liability. It has created a society driven by an advertising-based business model, reinforced emotional engagement, fostered an economic imbalance, blurred the line between moderation and censorship, and allowed for self-serving behavior among tech companies. While the prospect of a post-230 world may seem uncertain, it presents the opportunity for hope and renewal, as some companies venture towards alternative models. The existence of exceptions and the need to address these unintended consequences call for a critical reevaluation of Section 230’s impact on the public sphere and the future of online interactions.
Leave a Reply