Posted by Joe Yeager · Leave a Comment
Anyone who has been online at all in recent years has probably seen something that they wish that they hadn’t seen. And in the recent U.S. elections, people from all sides have complained about what was being said online, claiming that some of it ranged from hate speech to outright lies.
Despite the initial conclusion one may jump to that the internet has no safeguards or regulation, there is in fact the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was Congress’ original attempt to safeguard our children through legislation. Created, according to the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, “in an attempt to prevent minors from gaining access to sexually explicit materials on the internet”, it’s unfortunately fallen significantly short of its goals, as sexually explicit material is readily available to anyone online, even without having an account with many of the sites/apps.
Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act provides technology companies with broad immunity when it comes to liability for any harm caused by the content posted on their sites/apps. Given what has been happening more recently, Section 230 is seeing more scrutiny by the public and by Congress.
On the one hand, it’s easy to justify Section 230 immunity protection, because the companies are not actively reviewing the content before it gets posted, often live. This is different from traditional print publishing, even in the editorials section, where the writers/publishers are the companies themselves. With modern web hosting sites and social media, the tech companies are providing a platform, but not providing the content itself.
Still, Section 230 has been under fire many times for what gets posted on sites/apps. Because they are not actively reviewing the content, the sites providers are for all intents-and-purposes granted a “pass” when it comes to liability for that content – but what happens when the content posted is “dangerous”?
What if it
includes hate speech that targets a group of people and as a result, those individuals start receiving death threats? What if it promotes an activity like a “challenge”, where a number of the children who participate, end up in the hospital? Or what if a subset of users singles out an emotionally vulnerable member of the population to try and convince them to commit suicide? Clearly those directly involved in the behavior are responsible, but does the platform bear any responsibility to intercede before someone gets hurt? And who decides what is dangerous and what is acceptable?
It’s one area where lawmakers from both sides of the aisle tend to agree that something must be done. But will it ever be enough?
One of the problems with the Internet is that it’s a worldwide platform. Laws from one country, state, county or other form of government can be difficult to enforce globally. Indeed, lawmakers in the U.K. threatened to extradite arrest U.S. citizens over posts this past summer. I haven’t heard of any incidents of this actually happening, however.
With the elections now behind us, many people wonder what might happen to Section 230. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, President Trump had in his first term, previously issued an executive order “aimed at limiting the legal protection offered by Section 230.” This is a good sign for people worried about what’s happening online.
Presumably, his position has not changed, and we could be looking at major changes to Section 230, if not even a complete repeal of Section 230, but I see that as unlikely. I say this because it might put such a high burden on the platforms as to make their business plans unprofitable. This goes along with the same reason as to why companies don’t verify all users – imagine the costs and time involved with verifying the identity of every user on a platform.
Takeaways
There is a lot of controversy over Section 230 and as I mentioned previously, it is for good reason.
Section 230 allows companies to provide a platform to host content that is created by others while avoiding the consequences that would otherwise happen if that content were considered their responsibility. As a result, it keeps their costs down – not as big a concern for Meta (who owns both Facebook and Instagram and who reportedly made a gross profit of more than $108 billion in 2023), as for some of the newer/smaller players – but something to keep in mind.
From a consumer perspective, Section 230 provides us with several benefits. Most notably, it protects the right to free speech, a cornerstone of American life. It also provides a place for people to share ideas, resulting in new innovations and technological advancements that might not have been possible otherwise.
But at what cost. One might say that if a mass shooter or terrorist broadcasts live on a platform and they “accidentally” get increased ratings, there’s a moral obligation to shut them down, BUT the reality is, they can’t be sued. At the end of the day, Section 230 means there’s no requirement or even a real “bottom-line” incentive to do the right thing. But should there be?
The biggest issue as I see it is when people post content that they indicate as fact, when it may only be their opinion. This is especially true by people who are employed by legitimate news sources, but post things on their personal social media platforms.
In the end, it’s up to each of us to ensure our family is as safe as we can possibly be, and whatever happens with Section 230, it is unlikely to provide all the answers. So, as you look for ways to keep your family safe from what can happen online, here are a few resources that are available to you:
- The Cyberbullying Research Center – the best source available for all things related to cyberbullying.
- The International Bullying Prevention Association – A great source of information for anything related to bullying, offline or online.
- Darkness to Light – a great source of information and help for child sexual abuse, online or offline.
- Your local law enforcement is a good place to start. In today’s environment, many have dedicated officers who handle online problems. If they don’t have one, check with state or federal groups, such as the FBI.
- Many schools have resources to help families through problems that happen online. They also should have counselors to help with emotional issues. The same can be said for members of the clergy.
- Lastly, while the law may or may not be able to get you the result you wish, consulting with a lawyer regarding any civil actions that can be brought against the offender may be in order.
