Ex-Congressmen Pen The Most Ignorant, Incorrect, Confused, And Dangerous Attack On Section 230 I’ve Ever Seen

In my time covering internet speech issues, I've seen some truly ridiculous arguments regarding Section 230. I even created my ever-handy Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act" article four years ago, which still gets a ton of traffic to this day.

But I'm not sure I've come across a worse criticism of Section 230 than the one recently published by former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt and former Congressional Rep. Zach Wamp. They put together the criticism for Democracy Journal, entitled The Urgent Task of Reforming Section 230."

There are lots of problems with the article, which we'll get into. But first, I want to focus on the biggest, most brain-numbingly obvious problem, which is that they literally admit they don't care about the solution:

People on both sides of the aisle want to reform Section 230, and there's a range of ideas on how to do it. From narrowing its rules to sunsetting the provision entirely, dozens of bills have emerged offering different approaches. Some legislators argue that platforms should be liable for certain kinds of content-for example, health disinformation or terrorism propaganda. Others propose removing protections for advertisements or content provided by a recommendation algorithm. CRSM is currently bringing together tech, mental health, education, and policy experts to work on solutions. But the specifics are less important than the impact of the reform. We will support reform guided by commonsense priorities.

I have pointed out over and over again through the years that I am open to proposals on Section 230 reform, but the specifics are all that matter, because almost every proposal to date to reform Section 230" does not understand Section 230 or (more importantly) how it interacts with the First Amendment.

So saying well, any reform is what matters" isn't just flabbergasting. It's a sign of people who have never bothered to seriously sit with the challenges, trade-offs, and nuances of changing Section 230. The reality (as we've explained many times) is that changing Section 230 will almost certainly massively benefit some and massively harm others. Saying meh, doesn't matter, as long as we do it" suggests a near total disregard for the harm that any particular solution might do, and to whom.

Even worse, it disregards how nearly every solution proposed will actually cause real and significant harm to the people reformers insist they're trying to protect. And that's because they don't care or don't want to understand how these things actually work.

The rest of the piece only further cements the fact that Gephardt and Wamp have no experience with this issue and seem to simply think in extremely simplistic terms. They think that (1) social media is kinda bad these days" (2) Section 230 allows social media to be bad" and thus (3) reforming Section 230 will make social media better." All three of these statements are wrong.

Hilariously, the article starts off by name-checking Prof. Jeff Kosseff's book about Section 230. However, it then becomes clear that neither former Congress person read the book, because it would correct many of the errors in the piece. Then, they point out that both of them voted for CDA 230 and call it their most regrettable" vote:

Law professor Jeff Kosseff calls it the 26 words that created the internet." Senator Ron Wyden, one of its co-authors, calls it a sword and a shield" for online platforms. But we call it Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, one of our most regrettable votes during our careers in Congress.

While that's the title of Jeff's book, he didn't coin that phrase, so it's even more evidence that they didn't read it. Also, is that really such a regrettable vote"? I see both of them voted for the Patriot Act. Wouldn't that, maybe, be a bit more regrettable? Gephardt voted for the Crime Bill of 1994. I mean, come on.

Section 230 has enabled the internet to thrive, helped build out a strong US innovation industry online, and paved the way for more speech online. How is that worth regretting"?

These two former politicians have to resort to rewriting history:

But the internet has changed dramatically since the 1990s, and the tech industry's values have changed along with it. In 1996, Section 230 was protecting personal pages or small forums where users could talk about a shared hobby. Now, tech giants like Google, Meta, and X dominate all internet traffic, and both they and startups put a premium on growth. It is fundamental to their business model. They make money from advertising: Every new user means more profit. And to attract and maintain users, platforms rely on advanced algorithms that track our every online move, collecting data and curating feeds to our interests and demographics, with little regard for the reality that the most engaging content is often the most harmful.

When 230 was passed, it was in response to lawsuits involving two internet giants of the day (CompuServe, owned by accounting giant H&R Block at the time, and Prodigy, owned by IBM and Sears at the time), not some tiny startups. And yes, those companies also had advertisements and put a premium on growth." So it's not clear why the authors of this piece think otherwise.

The claim that the most engaging content is often the most harmful" has an implicit (obsolete) assumption. The assumption is that the companies Gephardt and Wamp are upset about optimize for engagement." While that may have been true over a decade ago when they first began experiments with algorithmic recommendations, most companies pretty quickly realized that optimizing on engagement alone was actually bad for business.

It frustrates users over time, drives away advertisers, and does not make for a successful long-term strategy. That's why every major platform has moved away from algorithms that focus solely on engagement. Because they know it's not a good long-term strategy. Yet Gephardt and Wamp are living in the past and think that algorithms are solely focused on engagement. They're not because the market says that's a bad idea.

Just like Big Tobacco, Big Tech's profits depend on an addictive product, which is marketed to our children to their detriment. Social media is fueling a national epidemic of loneliness, depression, and anxiety among teenagers. Around three out of five teenage girls say they have felt persistently sad or hopeless within the last year.And almost two out of three young adults either feel they have been harmed by social media themselves or know someone who feels that way. Our fellow members of the Council for Responsible Social Media (CRSM) at Issue One know the harms all too well: Some of them have lost children to suicide because of social media. And as Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, another CRSM member, exposed, even when social media executives have hard evidence that their company's algorithms are contributing to this tragedy, they won't do anything about it-unless they are forced to change their behavior.

Where to begin on this nonsense? No, social media is not addictive" like tobacco. Tobacco is a thing that includes nicotine, which is a physical substance that goes into your body and creates an addictive response in your bloodstream. Some speech online... is not that.

And, no, the internet is not fueling a national epidemic of loneliness, depression, and anxiety among teenagers." This has been debunked repeatedly. The studies do not support this. As for the stat that three out of five teenage girls say they have felt persistently sad or hopeless" well... maybe there are some other reasons for that which are not social media? Maybe we're living through a time of upheaval and nonsense where things like climate change are a major concern? And our leaders in Congress (like the authors of the piece I'm writing about) are doing fuck all to deal with it?

Maybe?

But, no, it couldn't be that our elected officials dicked around and did nothing useful for decades and fucked the planet.

Must be social media!

Also, they're flat out lying about what Haugen found. She found that the company was studying those issues to figure out how to fix them. The whole point of the study that everyone keeps pointing to was because there was a team at Facebook that was trying to figure out if the site was leading to bad outcomes among kids in order to try to fix it.

Almost everything written by Gephardt and Wamp in this piece is active misinformation.

It's not just our children. Our very democracy is at stake. Algorithms routinely promote extreme content, including disinformation, that is meant to sow distrust, create division, and undermine American democracy. And it works: An alarming 73 percent of election officials report an increase in threats in recent years, state legislatures across the country have introduced hundreds of harmful bills to restrict voting, about half of Americans believe at least one conspiracy theory, and violence linked to conspiracy theories is on the rise. We're in danger of creating a generation of youth who are polarized, politically apathetic, and unable to tell what's real from what's fake online.

Blaming all of the above on Section 230 is literal disinformation. To claim that somehow what's described here is 230's fault is so disconnected from reality as to raise serious questions about the ability of the authors of the piece to do basic reasoning.

First, nearly all disinformation is protected by the First Amendment, not Section 230. Are Gephardt and Wamp asking to repeal the First Amendment? Second, threats towards election officials are definitely not a Section 230 issue.

But, sure, okay, let's take them at their word that they think Section 230 is the problem and reform" is needed. I know they say they don't care what the reform is, just that it happens, but let's walk through some hypotheticals.

Let's start with an outright repeal. Will that make the US less polarized and stop disinformation? Of course not. It would make it worse! Because Section 230 gives platforms the freedom to moderate their sites as they see fit, utilizing their own editorial discretion without fear of liability.

Remove that, and you get companies who are less able to remove disinformation because the risk of a legal fight increases. So any lawyer would tell company leadership to minimize their efforts to cut down on disinformation.

Okay, some people say, maybe just change the law so that you're now liable for anything on your site.'" Well, okay, but now you have a very big First Amendment problem and, again, you get worse results. Because existing case law on the First Amendment from the Supreme Court on down says that you can't be liable for distributing content if you don't know it violates the law.

So, again, our hypothetical lawyers in this hypothetical world will say, okay, do everything to avoid knowledge." That will mean less reviewing of content, less moderation.

Or, alternatively, you get massive over-moderation to limit the risk of liability. Perhaps that's what Gephardt and Wamp really want: no more freedom for the filthy public to ever speak. Maybe all speaking should only occur on heavily limited TV. Maybe we go back to the days before civil rights were a thing, and it was just white men on TV telling us how everyone should live?

This is the problem. Gephardt and Wamp are upset about some vague things they claim are caused by social media, and only due to Section 230. They believe that some vague amorphous reform will fix it.

Except all of that is wrong. The problems they're discussing are broader, societal-level problems that these two former politicians failed to do anything about when they were in power. Now they are blaming people exercising their own free speech for these problems, and demanding that we change some unrelated law to... what...? Make themselves feel better?

This is not how you solve problems.

In short, Big Tech is putting profits over people. Throughout our careers, we have both supported businesses large and small, and we believe in their right to succeed. But they can't be allowed to avoid responsibility by thwarting regulation of a harmful product. No other industry works like this. After a door panel flew off a Boeing plane mid-flight in January, the Federal Aviation Administration grounded all similar planes and launched an investigation into their safety. But every time someone tries to hold social media companies accountable for the dangerous design of their products, they hide behind Section 230, using it as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Again, airplanes are not speech. Just like tobacco is not speech. These guys are terrible at analogies. And yes, every other industry that involves speech does work like this. The First Amendment protects nearly all the speech these guys are complaining about.

Section 230 has never been a get out of jail" card. This is a lazy trope spread by people who never have bothered to understand Section 230. Section 230 only says that the liability for violative content on an internet service goes to whoever created the content. That's it. There's no get out of jail free." Whoever creates the violative content can still go to jail (if that content really violates the law, which in most cases it does not).

If their concerns are about profits, well, did Gephardt and Wamp spend any time reforming how capitalism works when they were lawmakers? Did they seek to change things so that the fiduciary duty of company boards wasn't to deliver increasing returns every three months? Did they do anything to push for companies to be able to take a longer term view? Or to support stakeholders beyond investors?

No? Then, fellas, I think we found the problem. It's you and other lawmakers who didn't fix those problems, not Section 230.

That wasn't the intent of Section 230. It was meant to protect companies acting as good Samaritans, ensuring that if a user posts harmful content and the platform makes a good faith-effort to moderate or remove it, the company can't be held liable.

If you remove Section 230, they will have even less incentive to remove that content.

We still agree with that principle, but Big Tech is far from acting like the good Samaritan. The problem isn't that there are eating disorder videos, dangerous conspiracy theories, hate speech, and lies on the platforms-it's that the companies don't make a good-faith effort to remove this content, and that their products are designed to actually amplify it, often intentionally targeting minors.

This is now reaching levels of active disinformation. Yes, companies do, in fact, seek to remove that content. It violates all sorts of policies, but (1) it's not as easy as people think to actually deal with that content (because it's way harder to identify than ignorant fools with no experience think it is) and (2) studies have shown that removing that content often makes problems like eating disorders worse rather than better (because it's a demand-side problem, and users looking for that content will keep looking for it and find it in darker and darker places online, whereas when it's on mainstream social media, those sites can provide better interventions and guide people to helpful resources).

If Gephardt and Wamp spoke to literally any actual experts on this, they could have been informed about the realities, nuances, and trade-offs here. But they didn't. They appear to have surrounded themselves with moral panic nonsense peddlers.

They're former Congressmen who assume they must know the right answer, which is let's run with a false moral panic!"

Of course, you had to know that this ridiculous essay wouldn't be complete without a fire in a crowded theater" line, so of course it has that:

There is also a common claim from Silicon Valley that regulating social media is a violation of free speech. But free speech, as courts have ruled time and time again, is not unconditional. You can't yell fire" in a crowded theater where there is no fire because the ensuing stampede would put people in real danger. But this is essentially what social media companies are letting users do by knowingly building products that spread disinformation like wildfire.

Yup. These two former lawmakers really went there, using the trope that immediately identifies you as ignorant of the First Amendment. There are a few limited classes of speech that are unprotected, but the Supreme Court has signaled loud and clear that it is not expanding the list. The fire in a crowded theater" line was used as dicta in a case that was about locking up someone protesting the draft (do Gephardt and Wamp think we should lock up people for protesting the draft?!?) in a case that hasn't been considered good law in seven decades.

Holding social media companies accountable for the amplification of harmful content-whether disinformation, conspiracy theories, or misogynistic messages-isn't a violation of the First Amendment.

Yes, it literally is. I mean, there's no two ways around it. All that content, with a very, very few possible exceptions, is protected under the First Amendment.

Even the platform X, formerly known as Twitter, agrees that we have freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach, meaning posts that violate the platform's terms of service will be made less discoverable."

You absolute chuckleheads. The only reason sites can do freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach" is because Section 230 allows them to moderate without fear of liability. If you remove that, you get less moderation.

In a lawsuit brought by the mother of a young girl who died after copying a blackout challenge" that TikTok's algorithm allegedly recommended to her, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that Section 230 does not protect TikTok from liability when the platform's own design amplifies harmful content. This game-changing decision, if allowed to stand, could lead to a significant curtailing of Section 230's shield. Traditional media companies are already held to these standards: They are liable for what they publish, even content like letters to the editor, which are written by everyday people.

First of all, that ruling is extremely unlikely to stand because even many of Section 230's vocal critics recognize that the reasoning there made no sense. But second, the court said that algorithmic recommendations are expressive. And the end result is that while it may not be immune under 230 it remains protected under the First Amendment because the First Amendment protects expression.

This is why anyone who is going to criticize Section 230 absolutely has to understand how it intersects with the First Amendment. And anyone claiming that you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" is good law is so ignorant of the very basic concepts that it's difficult to take them seriously.

If anything, Section 230 reforms could make platforms more pleasant for users; in the case of X, reforms could entice advertisers to come back after they fled in 2022-23 over backlash around hate speech. Getting rid of the vitriol could make space for creative and fact-based content to thrive.

I'm sorry, but are they claiming that vitriol" is not protected under the First Amendment? Dick and Zach, buddies, pals, please have a seat. I have some unfortunate news for you that may make you sad.

But, don't worry. Don't blame me for it. It must be Section 230 making me make you sad when I tell you: vitriol is protected by the First Amendment.

The changes you suggest are not going to help advertisers come back to ExTwitter. Again, they will make things worse, because Elon is not going to want to deal with liability, so he will do even less moderation because the changes to Section 230 will increase liability for moderation choices you make.

How can you not understand this?

But for now, these platforms are still filled with lies, extremism, and harmful content.

Which is protected by the First Amendment, and which won't change if Section 230 is changed.

We know what it's like to sit at the dinner table and watch our grandchildren, even those under ten years old, scroll mindlessly on their phones. We genuinely worry, every time they pick them up, what the devices are doing to them-and to all of us.

Which also has got nothing to do with Section 230 and won't change no matter what you do to Section 230?

Also, um, have you tried... parenting?

This may really be the worst piece on Section 230 I have ever read. And I've gone through both Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley's Section 230 proposals.

This entire piece misunderstands the problems, misunderstands the law, misunderstands the constitution, then lies about the causes, blames the wrong things, has no clear actual reform policy, and is completely ignorant of how the changes they seem to want would do more damage to the very things they're claiming need fixing.

It's a stunning display of ignorant solutionism by ignorant fools. It's the type of thing that could really only be pulled off by overconfident ex-Congresspeople with no actual understanding of the issues at play.