Politics

The FCC asked for public comments on Trump’s Section 230 executive order. Here’s what people said.

The agency has received more than 1,000 comments in response to a proposal to reform tech's legal protections.

The FCC asked for public comments on Trump’s Section 230 executive order. Here’s what people said.

Rifling through the filings provides an illuminating glimpse into how the fight over tech's prized legal protection is playing out following Trump's social media executive order, which he signed in May.

Photo: Bloomberg via Getty Images

Hundreds of comments flooded the Federal Communications Commission's website this week as companies, trade groups, advocacy organizations, passionate individuals and possibly bots scrambled to weigh in the future of Section 230 ahead of Wednesday's deadline.

As is typical with any regulatory process, many of those comments are identical to one another and appear to be copy-and-pasted from some original source. But rifling through the filings provides an illuminating glimpse into how the fight over tech's prized legal protection is playing out following Trump's social media executive order, which he signed in May.

Here's a rundown of the most notable comments from big players — and from someone pretending to be one.

AT&T

AT&T, a longtime rival of the social media companies that rely on Section 230, says it's high time to rein in Facebook and Google to hold them "accountable." The argument goes something like this: We have to follow all these annoying regulations, so why shouldn't they?

The telecom giant said Section 230 was written to protect nascent startups — not the trillion-dollar corporations that Big Tech is today. (AT&T is worth about $200 billion).

"Just as AT&T and other ISPs disclose the basics of their network management practices to the public, leading tech platforms should now be required to make disclosures about how they collect and use data, how they rank search results, how they interconnect and interoperate with others, and, more generally, how their algorithms preference some content, products and services over others," AT&T wrote.

AT&T isn't making any specific recommendations for the future of Section 230, but the company argues that it needs to be reformed in order to reduce "gross disparities" between traditional companies, like ISPs, and online platforms.

Reddit

Reddit has defended Section 230 before Congress before, and it's going to bat for the law again. Reddit benefits directly from Section 230's protections; it could be sued into oblivion if it could be held liable for all of the awful stuff people post on its platform.

"Whereas Section 230 has been improperly portrayed as a gift to 'Big Tech,' we argue that it is crucial to those smaller companies, like ours, that seek to compete with and offer alternatives to the largest corporate entities," Reddit wrote.

Lawmakers often begin griping about Section 230 during controversies over content moderation, as Republicans say social media companies shouldn't be allowed to take down any content they choose, and Democrats say Big Tech should be held liable for the hatred and dangerous content on their platforms.

But Reddit pointed out that its content moderation system is the opposite of the top-down approach used by Google, Twitter and YouTube, and that it's enabled by Section 230.

"The changes to Section 230 interpretation and enforcement proposed by NTIA would undermine our community-centered moderation model and place undue burdens on everyday users who make everyday decisions to curate their community," Reddit wrote.

Tech trade groups

Facebook, Twitter, Google and Amazon did not file their own comments in response to the proposal. But their trade groups, the Internet Association and NetChoice, sure did, arguing aggressively and extensively for the unconditional protection of Section 230.

The Internet Association and NetChoice both argued that the FCC doesn't have the authority to engage in the rule-making proposed by the petition in the first place, considering Congress hasn't explicitly given FCC jurisdiction over Section 230. And anyway, poking holes in Section 230 could cause "irreparable harm" to the internet ecosystem, they wrote.

"After two decades of judicial interpretation of Section 230, during which the FCC has affirmatively chosen not to assert jurisdiction to regulate online speech, the FCC should not now seek through rule to reinterpret the statute in novel ways," NetChoice wrote. "Having properly not done so in the 24 years since the statute was enacted, the Commission has no special authority or expertise to which courts would defer."

Both groups further noted that any effort by the FCC to tweak the interpretation of Section 230 would likely be met with skepticism from courts in the future.

"NTIA's proposal to have the FCC introduce new rules contradicting well-established case law would adversely impact a large sector of the economy and would be viewed with skepticism by any court due to the agency's lack of designated authority," the Internet Association argued.

The Internet Accountability Project

The Internet Accountability Project, a right-wing anti-tech group, is partially funded by Oracle. It insists it has lots of other donors, too, though it's hard to tell who those donors are given it's a dark-money advocacy group.

The relatively new organization, which has been an influential voice in the Josh Hawley, anti-Big Tech camp on the right, filed comments supporting a "reexamination" of Section 230. IAP rehashed a central Republican argument for reforming Section 230: the need to protect conservative speech online.

"As a conservative group dedicated to advocating for policies that promote online competition, safeguard digital privacy, and prevent political bias, we are troubled that Section 230 is used to protect harmful online content as well as its use by digital platforms to justify arbitrary internal guidelines to allow censorship of conservative speech," IAP wrote.

IAP argued that the Trump administration and the FCC have full authority to take on Section 230, and they should use it to the fullest extent.

"Based on the unprecedented expansion of the digital marketplace in recent decades, we ask that the Commission reevaluate the operability of Section 230 using its broad rule-making authorities impliedly authorized by the Supreme Court and demanded by a civil society that considers freedom of speech a fundamental value," IAP wrote.

100 Black Men of America

100 Black Men of America, a men's group dedicated to mentoring and educating young African-Americans in the U.S., argued that the FCC and Congress should review whether Section 230 needs to be updated to stave off the "increasing amounts of hateful, false and/or violent content" online.

"There have been far too many alarming examples of algorithms driving vile, hateful or conspiratorial content to the top of the sites millions of people click onto every day — companies seeming to aid in the spread of this content as a direct function of their business models," 100 Black Men of America wrote.

The group specifically called out Amazon for using Section 230 as a "legal shield to avoid liability" when the site sells unsafe or unapproved products on their website.

Mark Zuckerberg himself

Just kidding. But a person in Moline, Illinois, posted under the moniker Mark Zuckerberg: "People on Facebook can and do call me every name in the book, including wishing sickness and death upon my children and I simply because I'm a Trump supporter and will homeschool my children when they get school age. If I try to report these people, they always come back and say there was no violation that occurred. The second I try to retaliate I get put on a 30 day ban."

The comment is a good reminder that the public comments process, while an important part of administrative rule-making, is extremely vulnerable to identity theft, spam and inauthentic behavior.

Climate

This carbon capture startup wants to clean up the worst polluters

The founder and CEO of point-source carbon capture company Carbon Clean discusses what the startup has learned, the future of carbon capture technology, as well as the role of companies like his in battling the climate crisis.

Carbon Clean CEO Aniruddha Sharma told Protocol that fossil fuels are necessary, at least in the near term, to lift the living standards of those who don’t have access to cars and electricity.

Photo: Carbon Clean

Carbon capture and storage has taken on increasing importance as companies with stubborn emissions look for new ways to meet their net zero goals. For hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel production, it’s one of the few options that exist to help them get there.

Yet it’s proven incredibly challenging to scale the technology, which captures carbon pollution at the source. U.K.-based company Carbon Clean is leading the charge to bring down costs. This year, it raised a $150 million series C round, which the startup said is the largest-ever funding round for a point-source carbon capture company.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol covering climate. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Workplace

Why companies cut staff after raising millions

Are tech firms blowing millions in funding just weeks after getting it? Experts say it's more complicated than that.

Bolt, Trade Republic, HomeLight, and Stord all drew attention from funding announcements that happened just weeks or days before layoffs.

Photo: Pulp Photography/Getty Images

Fintech startup Bolt was one of the first tech companies to slash jobs, cutting 250 employees, or a third of its staff, in May. For some workers, the pain of layoffs was a shock not only because they were the first, but also because the cuts came just four months after Bolt had announced a $355 million series E funding round and achieved a peak valuation of $11 billion.

“Bolt employees were blind sided because the CEO was saying just weeks ago how everything is fine,” an anonymous user wrote on the message board Blind. “It has been an extremely rough day for 1/3 of Bolt employees,” another user posted. “Sadly, I was one of them who was let go after getting a pay-raise just a couple of weeks ago.”

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.

Climate

The fight to define the carbon offset market's future

The world’s largest carbon offset issuer is fighting a voluntary effort to standardize the industry. And the fate of the climate could hang in the balance.

It has become increasingly clear that scaling the credit market will first require clear standards and transparency.

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

There’s a major fight brewing over what kind of standards will govern the carbon offset market.

A group of independent experts looking to clean up the market’s checkered record and the biggest carbon credit issuer on the voluntary market is trying to influence efforts to define what counts as a quality credit. The outcome could make or break an industry increasingly central to tech companies meeting their net zero goals.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Policy

White House AI Bill of Rights lacks specific guidance for AI rules

The document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is long on tech guidance, but short on restrictions for AI.

While the document provides extensive suggestions for how to incorporate AI rights in technical design, it does not include any recommendations for restrictions on the use of controversial forms of AI.

Photo: Ana Lanza/Unsplash

It was a year in the making, but people eagerly anticipating the White House Bill of Rights for AI will have to continue waiting for concrete recommendations for future AI policy or restrictions.

Instead, the document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is legally non-binding and intended to be used as a handbook and a “guide for society” that could someday inform government AI legislation or regulations.

Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights features a list of five guidelines for protecting people in relation to AI use:

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins