Katie Couric Is Wrong: Repealing Section 230 Won’t Stop Online Misinformation

Katie Couric recently claimed that repealing Section 230 would help combat online misinformation. The problem is, she couldn't be more wrong. Worse, as a prominent voice, she's contributing to the widespread misinformation around Section 230 herself.

A few years ago, for reasons that are unclear to me, Katie Couric chaired a weird Aspen Institute Commission on Disinformation," which produced a report on how to tackle disinformation. The report was, well, not good. It was written by people with no real experience tackling issues related to disinformation and it shows. As we noted at the time, it took a split the baby" approach to trying to deal with disinformation. It described how there were no good answers, that doing anything might make the problem worse, and then still suggested that maybe repealing Section 230 for certain kinds of content (not clearly defined) might help.

The report's recommendations were a mix of unworkable and nonsensical ideas, betraying the authors' lack of true expertise on the complex issues and, more importantly, the tradeoffs around online disinformation.

Repealing Section 230 would not magically solve misinformation online. In fact, it would likely make the problem worse. Section 230 is what allows websites to moderate content and experiment with anti-misinformation measures, without fear of lawsuits. Removing that protection would incentivize sites to take a hands-off approach, or shut down user content entirely. The end result would be fewer places for online discourse, dominated by a few tech giants - hardly a recipe for truth.

Still, it appears that Couric is now presenting herself as an expert on disinformation. The NY Times Dealbook has a series of influential people" supposedly sharing their insights" on big topics of the day, and they asked Couric about disinformation. Her response was that she was upset Section 230 won't be repealed.

What is the best tool a person has to combat misinformation today?

There are many remedies for combating misinformation, but sadly getting rid of Section 230 and requiring more transparency by technology companies may not happen.

But again, that only raises serious questions about how little she actually understands the role of Section 230 and how it functions. The idea that repealing Section 230 would be a remedy for combating misinformation is misinformation itself.

Remember, Section 230 is what frees companies to try to respond to and combat misinformation. There are many market forces that push companies to respond to misinformation: the loss of users, the loss of advertisers, the rise of competition. Indeed, we're seeing all three of those occurring these days as ExTwitter and Facebook have decided to drop any pretense of trying to combat misinformation.

But then you need Section 230 to allow websites that actually are trying to combat misinformation to apply whatever policies they can come up with. It's what allows them to experiment and to adjust in the face of ever sneakier and ever more malicious users trying to push misinformation.

Without Section 230, each decision and each policy could potentially lead to liability. This means that instead of having moderation teams focused on what will make for the best community overall, you have legal teams focused on what will reduce liability or threats of litigation.

The underlying damning fact here is that the vast majority of misinformation is very much protected speech. And it needs to be if you want to have free speech. Otherwise, you have people like incoming President Trump declare any news that is critical of him as fake news" and allowing him to take legal action over it.

On top of that, the standard under the First Amendment is that if there is violative content hosted by an intermediary (such as a bookseller), there needs to be actual knowledge not just that the content exists, but that it somehow violates the law.

The end result then is that if you repeal Section 230, you don't end up with less misinformation. You almost certainly end up with way more. Because websites are encouraged to avoid making moderation decisions, because everything will need to be reviewed by an expensive legal team who will caution against most decisions. It also creates incentives to decrease even reviewing content, out of a fear that a court might deem any moderation effort to be actual knowledge."

Thus, the websites that continue to host third-party user-generated content are likely to do significantly less trust & safety work, because the law is saying that if they continue to do that work, they may face greater legal threats for it. That won't lead to less misinformation, it will lead to more.

The main thing that repealing Section 230 would do is probably lead to many fewer places willing to host third-party content at all, because of that kind of legal liability. Many online forums that want to support communities in a safe and thoughtful way will realize that the risk of liability is too great, and will exit the market (or never enter at all).

So the end result is that you have basically wiped the market of upstarts, smaller spaces, and competitors and left the market to Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. I'm curious if Katie Couric thinks that's a better world.

Indeed, the only spaces that will remain are those that take the path described above, of limiting their moderation decisions to the legally required level. Only a few sites will do this, and they will quickly become garbage sites that users and advertisers won't be as interested in participating in.

So we have more power given to Zuck and Musk, fewer competitive spaces, and the remaining sites are incentivized to do less content moderation. Plenty of experts have explained this, including those listed as advisors to Couric's commission.

I can guarantee that she (or whoever the actual staffers who handled this issue) was told about this impact. But she seems to have internalized just the repeal 230" part, which is just fundamentally backwards.

That said, I actually do think that the rest of her answer is a pretty good summary of what the real response needs to be: better education, better media literacy, and better teaching people how to fend for themselves against attempts to mislead and lie to them.

As a result, it's mostly up to the individual to be vigilant about identifying misinformation and not sharing it. This will require intensive media literacy, which will help people understand the steps required to consider the source. That means investigating websites that may be disseminating inaccurate information and understanding their agendas, second-sourcing information, and if it's an individual, learning more about that person's background and expertise. Of course, this is all time-consuming and a lot to ask of consumers, but for now, I ascribe to the Sy Syms adage: An educated consumer is our best customer."

But, of course, the semi-ironic point in all of this is that having Section 230 around makes that more possible. Without Section 230, we have fewer useful resources to help teach media literacy. We have fewer ways of educating people on how to do things right.

For example, Wikipedia has made clear that it cannot exist without Section 230, and it has become a key tool in information literacy these days (which is ironic, given that in its early days it was widely accused of being a vector of misinformation).

Combating online misinformation is a complex challenge with no easy answers. But despite Couric's claims, repealing Section 230 is the wrong solution. It would lead to less content moderation, more concentrated power in the hands of a few tech giants, and, ultimately, even more misinformation spreading unchecked online. Policymakers and thought leaders need to move beyond simplistic soundbites and engage with the real nuances of these issues.

Katie Couric is a big name with a big platform. Misinforming the public about these issues does a real disservice to the issue.

Now, maybe the NY Times can ask actual experts who understand the tradeoffs, rather than the famous talking head who doesn't, next time they want to ask questions about complex and nuanced subjects? I mean, that would involve not spreading misinformation about Section 230, so probably not.