Revisiting Section 230 : Our livestream with Yael Eisenstat & Kate Klonick
Written by Nina Joshi, an innovation consultant specializing in human-centered healthcare, about our recent livestream conversation. Our partner for the event was TheBridge.
“I don’t think we need to try to figure out how to take 2020 and fit it into the 1996 rules of section 230. We need to look at what 2020 is” –Yael Eisenstat
How should platforms moderate content that may incite violence or misinform? Is Section 230--a crucial piece of internet legislation from 1996 that generally gives immunity to platforms that publish third-party content--in need of serious change?
The Internet in 2020 plays an ever-growing part in public discourse. There has been much discussion about the influence of large-scale social media companies like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter on our lives. Yael Eisenstat (Visiting Fellow at Cornell Tech's Digital Life Initiative, former Global Head of Elections Integrity Operations at Facebook) & Kate Klonick (Assistant Professor at St. John's University Law School and an Affiliate Fellow at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project), spoke about a key piece of legislation called Section 230 which some feel is outdated and problematic when trying to hold these internet giants accountable. WATCH THE RECORDING HERE
What is section 230?
The Communications Decency Act was a piece of federal legislation passed in 1996 [much of which was found to be unconstitutional and overturned]. Section 230 is a part of this legislation that states: "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". Section 230 grants immunity [with carve-outs for copyright, child pornography, trafficking) to technology companies that provide a platform for users to engage with. Yael credits Section 230 as one of the main reasons why the Internet was able to flourish.
READ What Is Section 230? from the New York Times
**Kate Klonick also provides as thorough explanation of Section 230 at the start of the livestream.
WATCH a discussion about the history of Section 230
Section 230 in 2020
There has been much debate on the efficacy of section 230. At the time it was drafted the Internet was in its infancy, and section 230 granted immunity to third party platforms to host things like message boards and blogs, which was the Internet modality of choice during that time. The Internet looks very different in 2020. Social media companies have become an integral (and maybe even irreplaceable) part of our culture and press. Section 230 now not only grants immunity to neutral third-party administrators like website/blog development & hosting platforms as intended, but it also grants immunity to these entirely new types of “interactive computer services” (Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc). Section 230 was drafted without any consideration for the new monetized, algorithm-based, and addictive Internet in 2020.
Defining Social Media
The functionalities of social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram have been rapidly changing and expanding. Kate uses the emerging dancing app, TikTok as an example. A few months ago it was almost strictly a platform for silly dancing videos among Gen Z, but now there has been a surge of political content, marketers, and mass commercialization. Kate and Yael argue that this rapid change of scope often seen on social media platforms needs to be taken into account when thinking about the future of Section 230.
A discussion around Section 230 ends up being a discussion around responsibility, transparency, and balance. While this piece of legislation is very small, it plays a large role in determining Internet policies that affect many aspects of our lives. When discussing the future of Section 230, Yael and Kate assert that an outcome-focused approach that leverages the technologists in Silicon Valley and politicians in Washington DC is a good place to start.