Section 230 of the CDA

    Section 230 of the CDA (Communications Decency Agreement) has been a controversial policy recently. It originally was a layer of protection for social media and other online platforms from being held responsible for the content that its users upload. It determined that the individual users of the platforms are the publishers of the content, not the actual platform itself. In other words, even though content gets posted on these platforms, they are not considered the producers of that content. 

The legislation specifies that the platforms are able to freely police their sites and the content posted upon them according to their guidelines, so they have the right to choose what material can stay up or be taken off. 

As a result of these parameters signifying the identity of social platforms in relation to the content displayed by them, the platforms are able to avoid legal troubles concerning more sensitive material. Therefore, online companies aren’t liable for harmful content, and they can’t be punished for failing to remove content that they choose not to.

While this policy can be beneficial for companies so that they aren’t constantly having to deal with the consequences for their irresponsible users, there have been some blurred lines when considering what content is considered acceptable or unacceptable. Lawsuits have arisen concerning this legislation and left people questioning if it needs to be changed. 

Two very recent cases concerning Section 230 are Google v. Gonzalez and Twitter v. Taamneh. Google v. Gonzales came first, where the argument was that Google and its platforms promoted ISIS and allowed them to form new recruits because its algorithm encouraged it by displaying similar content to people who wanted to view it. It claimed that because of this accessibility to terrorist content, Google could be liable for some of the attacks. The court ruled that Google could not be held responsible because these posts were made by third-party users, and were therefore protected by Section 230. 

Twitter v. Taamneh was a similar case but yielded a different result. In this case, the claim was that Twitter failed to remove accounts that were associated with and supporting ISIS. The plaintiffs then claimed that because of the activity on these pro-terrorist accounts, contributed to and influenced activity from ISIS supporters. Despite the similarity of the cases, the court ruled differently here. It said that Twitter could be held responsible for “aiding and abetting” an act of terrorism. Two very contradictory outcomes for two similar cases show the uncertainty of Section 230’s policy and confusion with its limits and abilities. 

The Department of Justice is looking for clarification surrounding Section 230 and actually uploaded “areas ripe for reform” within the legislation. The topics that seem most critical to discuss are how online platforms address harmful content, clarify the federal government's involvement concerning “unlawful” content, promote competition for platforms willing to better enforce Section 230, and allow greater transparency with platforms and their users. Hopefully, addressing these areas of concern within Section 230 will give a more clear idea of what content is harmful, and how companies are supposed to act accordingly toward content violations. Because so many people use online platforms so frequently, it is important to get these parameters figured out as soon as possible.