Fearless Speech
11-02-2024When Congress passed the Communications Decency Act in 1996, it included section 230, 26 words that in many ways have made the internet. “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.” These lines have made it nearly impossible to hold websites responsible for what they publish. Not only can anyone write nearly anything on a website, but that website can amplify that post and send it into an algorithmically induced virality without being responsible for its truth or legality. Allison Stanger, Jaron Lanier, and Audrey Tang argue that there is a meaningful path to repeal and renew Section 230. They write:
"The choice before us is not binary between unchecked viral harassment and heavy-handed censorship. A third path exists: one that curtails viral harassment while preserving the free exchange of ideas. This balanced approach requires careful definition but is achievable, just as we’ve defined limits on viral financial transactions to prevent Ponzi schemes. Current engagement-based optimization amplifies hate and misinformation while discouraging constructive dialogue.
Our proposed “repeal and renew” approach would remove the liability shield for social media companies’ algorithmic amplification while protecting citizens’ direct speech. This reform distinguishes between fearless speech—which deserves constitutional protection—and reckless speech that causes demonstrable harm. The evidence of such harm is clear: from the documented mental health impacts of engagement-optimized content to the spread of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) through algorithm-driven networks."