yesEmily BirnbaumNone
×

Get access to Protocol

I’ve already subscribed

Will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy

Policy

This is the Democrats’ plan to limit Section 230

The Senate bill would defend civil rights and take on a range of online harms.

This is the Democrats’ plan to limit Section 230

The so-called SAFE TECH Act was introduced Friday by Sens. Mark Warner, Mazie Hirono and Amy Klobuchar.

Photo: Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images

Three top Democratic senators added to the stack of proposed Section 230 reforms Friday, introducing their own bill that creates narrow carve-outs for a range of online harms, dramatically limits the scope of behaviors that Section 230 covers and takes aim at illicit activity that online platforms directly profit from.

The so-called SAFE TECH Act was introduced Friday by Sens. Mark Warner, Mazie Hirono and Amy Klobuchar. Under the bill, online platforms would not be able to claim Section 230 immunity for alleged violations of federal or state civil rights laws, antitrust laws, cyberstalking laws, human rights laws or civil actions regarding a wrongful death. The law would strip companies of immunity for any speech they were paid to carry, such as ads or marketplace listings, and it would make clear that Section 230 does not shield companies from complying with court orders.

In addition to the specific carve-outs it includes, the SAFE TECH Act attempts to limit Section 230 more broadly, so that it would be applied only to actual speech, not all bad behavior online: for example, illegal gun sales. To achieve this, the bill makes a subtle but meaningful tweak to the part of the law that's often referred to as the "26 words that created the internet."

As currently written, that part of the law reads: "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." Under the SAFE TECH Act, the word "information" would be swapped out for the word "speech," narrowing the law and potentially erasing liability protections for a range of other illicit information-sharing that happens on online platforms.

Tech giants including Facebook and Twitter have recently signaled openness to some Section 230 changes. Facebook has even gone so far as to place ads saying it welcomes regulation. But both companies' proposals tend to advocate for enhanced disclosure about content moderation and cross-industry collaboration, changes that would be relatively simple for their large businesses to pull off. The SAFE TECH Act goes much further, potentially opening up both big and small tech platforms to lawsuits they've previously been able to dismiss in short order.

During the drafting process, Warner, Hirono and Klobuchar's staff consulted with civil rights groups like Color of Change and Muslim Advocates, as well as experts in online harms, including University of Miami School of Law professor Mary Anne Franks and University of Virginia law professor Danielle Citron, who together run the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative.

Franks and Citron said they were particularly vocal about limiting Section 230 protections to speech, not all information on the internet. "For a long time I've said one of the major problems with Section 230 is it's way too broad in what it considers to be protected," Franks said, pointing to the case Daniel v. Armslist, in which a man whose wife had already filed a restraining order was able to illegally buy a gun on Armslist, which he then used to kill his wife and two others. Armslist successfully claimed immunity under Section 230.

"This case has nothing to do with speech. It has to do with the sale of guns," Citron said. Revising the law to specify that it pertains only to speech could stop that kind of behavior from also being protected, she argues.

The legislation also targets ads and other paid content, potentially making the platforms liable for harmful material from which they make money. It would discourage platforms from, say, serving up ads for fraudulent products or scams, and it would clarify that platforms can be held responsible for facilitating any ads that violate civil rights statutes.

Olivier Sylvain, a professor of law at Fordham University who also consulted on the bill, said Section 230 as written makes it difficult for plaintiffs to allege that platforms are responsible for serving ads in ways that could violate civil rights laws. One prominent example: when Facebook allowed advertisers to exclude users by race. Facebook settled a suit filed by civil rights advocates and has since made a slew of changes to prevent illegal discrimination in advertising. But Sylvain said the barriers to those kinds of suits are still too high, and they often don't get to the discovery phase.

Under the new legislation, Sylvain said, "Facebook and other intermediaries would still be able to litigate the question of whether or not they are violating" civil rights laws. "What you have under Section 230 is an immunity that never gets us to the question of whether they are responsible," he added.

Citron and Franks underscored this point: that removing these liability protections doesn't immediately mean online platforms will be found liable. "You've got to prove the crime," Citron said.

Still, both she and Franks have reservations about taking a piecemeal approach to Section 230 reform and creating exemptions for specific types of wrongdoing. That, Franks argues, risks creating a "hierarchy of harms." It also creates an unwieldy and complicated law that Franks worries could be used by tech companies and Section 230 absolutists to dismiss the bill altogether. "To critics, I worry it's going to look like death by 1,000 cuts," Franks said, though she stressed that she is supportive of the bill.

The SAFE TECH Act is only one in a slew of proposals certain to come from lawmakers this year as they try to hammer out a reform that could make it through both chambers of Congress. But it sets the tone for the conversation Democrats want to have as they assume power in the Senate, leaving behind all mention of anti-conservative bias and focusing on Section 230's impact on human rights.

"Section 230 has provided a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card to the largest platform companies even as their sites are used by scam artists, harassers and violent extremists to cause damage and injury," Warner said in a statement. "This bill doesn't interfere with free speech — it's about allowing these platforms to finally be held accountable for harmful, often criminal behavior enabled by their platforms to which they have turned a blind eye for too long."

Politics

A Bloomberg-backed ‘tech co’ is building campaign tools for the left and right

The stealthy firm, which has been buying political tech firms for more than a year, is backed by Emma Bloomberg's philanthropic group.

The new firm, called Tech co., is backed by Michael Bloomberg's daughter, Emma Bloomberg.

Image: Clayton Cardinalli

A new company backed by Michael Bloomberg's daughter Emma Bloomberg has been quietly buying political tech firms and going on a hiring spree, as it seeks to create a digital organizing platform that operates "outside of a traditional 'Red/Blue' partisan paradigm."

Neither the existence of the firm, called simply Tech co. for now, nor its high-profile funder have been previously reported, though it's been up and running for at least a year. But a spate of recent job listings seeking data scientists, behavioral scientists and engineers have circulated through the insular political tech whisper mill, sparking curiosity as the startup prepares to emerge from stealth mode this spring.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky
Issie Lapowsky (@issielapowsky) is a senior reporter at Protocol, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University’s Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing. Email Issie.
Sponsored Content

Building better relationships in the age of all-remote work

How Stripe, Xero and ModSquad work with external partners and customers in Slack channels to build stronger, lasting relationships.

Image: Original by Damian Zaleski

Every business leader knows you can learn the most about your customers and partners by meeting them face-to-face. But in the wake of Covid-19, the kinds of conversations that were taking place over coffee, meals and in company halls are now relegated to video conferences—which can be less effective for nurturing relationships—and email.

Email inboxes, with hard-to-search threads and siloed messages, not only slow down communication but are also an easy target for scammers. Earlier this year, Google reported more than 18 million daily malware and phishing emails related to Covid-19 scams in just one week and more than 240 million daily spam messages.

Keep Reading Show less
Policy

Here are Big Tech’s biggest threats from states

The states are moving much quicker than Congress on privacy, taxes and content moderation.

Virginia is expected to be the second state to pass a comprehensive privacy law.

Photo: Ron Cogswell/Flickr

When critics say that Virginia's new privacy bill is "industry-approved," they're not totally wrong, said David Marsden, the state senator who has been working for months to shepherd the law through the state legislature.

It was an Amazon lobbyist who originally presented Marsden with the text of the bill, which hews closely to the failed Washington Privacy Act, versions of which have been pushed by Microsoft across the country.

Keep Reading Show less
Emily Birnbaum

Emily Birnbaum ( @birnbaum_e) is a tech policy reporter with Protocol. Her coverage focuses on the U.S. government's attempts to regulate one of the most powerful industries in the world, with a focus on antitrust, privacy and politics. Previously, she worked as a tech policy reporter with The Hill after spending several months as a breaking news reporter. She is a Bethesda, Maryland native and proud Kenyon College alumna.

Transforming 2021

Blockchain, QR codes and your phone: the race to build vaccine passports

Digital verification systems could give people the freedom to work and travel. Here's how they could actually happen.

One day, you might not need to carry that physical passport around, either.

Photo: CommonPass

There will come a time, hopefully in the near future, when you'll feel comfortable getting on a plane again. You might even stop at the lounge at the airport, head to the regional office when you land and maybe even see a concert that evening. This seemingly distant reality will depend upon vaccine rollouts continuing on schedule, an open-sourced digital verification system and, amazingly, the blockchain.

Several countries around the world have begun to prepare for what comes after vaccinations. Swaths of the population will be vaccinated before others, but that hasn't stopped industries decimated by the pandemic from pioneering ways to get some people back to work and play. One of the most promising efforts is the idea of a "vaccine passport," which would allow individuals to show proof that they've been vaccinated against COVID-19 in a way that could be verified by businesses to allow them to travel, work or relax in public without a great fear of spreading the virus.

Keep Reading Show less
Mike Murphy

Mike Murphy ( @mcwm) is the director of special projects at Protocol, focusing on the industries being rapidly upended by technology and the companies disrupting incumbents. Previously, Mike was the technology editor at Quartz, where he frequently wrote on robotics, artificial intelligence, and consumer electronics.

Protocol | Fintech

Robinhood's CEO says he's sorry. But what will Congress do about it?

Lawmakers debate more regulation and call for more transparency.

During a Congressional hearing on Thursday, Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev argued that the GameStop crisis had a probability of happening once in 3.5 million times.

Photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev appeared before Congress on Thursday to defend the company against accusations that Robinhood hurt retail investors by preventing them from selling shares and encouraging risky behavior as part of the GameStop stock trading drama.

Tenev appeared along with others, including Reddit CEO Steve Huffman, Citadel's Ken Griffin, Melvin Capital's Gabe Plotkin, and Keith Gill, who uses the handle "Roaring Kitty" on YouTube. While Tenev didn't answer all the questions that lawmakers posed, he had one big accomplishment: He didn't have any of the major gaffes that have plagued him in previous interviews.

Keep Reading Show less
Tomio Geron

Tomio Geron ( @tomiogeron) is a San Francisco-based reporter covering fintech. He was previously a reporter and editor at The Wall Street Journal, covering venture capital and startups. Before that, he worked as a staff writer at Forbes, covering social media and venture capital, and also edited the Midas List of top tech investors. He has also worked at newspapers covering crime, courts, health and other topics. He can be reached at tgeron@protocol.com or tgeron@protonmail.com.

Latest Stories