yesIssie LapowskyNone
×

Get access to Protocol

I’ve already subscribed

Will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy

Power

The Justice Department wants to chip away at Section 230. Here's what you need to know.

The DOJ's proposal goes after "bad Samaritans," encryption and the moderation of "otherwise objectionable" content.

William Barr

The Department of Justice is calling on Congress to rewrite Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

The internet's favorite law is under attack.

The latest blow to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act came Wednesday, when the Department of Justice issued a list of proposals asking Congress to amend the law in ways that would make it easier to hold tech companies like Facebook and Twitter legally liable for harmful content that appears on their platforms.

The department's final proposal to Congress comes on the heels of a presidential executive order last month and a newly introduced bill from Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, both of which seek to chip away at companies' Section 230 protection in cases where those companies are accused of political bias.

Unlike those measures, which have been roundly criticized even by Section 230's critics, the DOJ's proposal focuses more squarely on stripping immunity from "bad Samaritans." It would also punish encrypted platforms that are, in essence, blind to bad behavior on their platforms.

What does that mean? How would it affect the majority of tech companies? And what will happen next? Here's what you need to know:

What is a 'bad Samaritan'?

Some parts of the DOJ's proposal would affect only a small subset of tech companies, while others would have more sweeping ramifications.

The proposal first seeks to address the problem of companies claiming Section 230 immunity despite the fact that they are actively facilitating or soliciting illegal content. That includes, for instance, websites that exist for the sole purpose of hosting revenge porn or illegal gun sales. This, the DOJ argues, was never the intention of Section 230, which was written to enable "good Samaritans" to block bad behavior, but protect them when they miss things or when they take down content they shouldn't have.

The bad Samaritan exception has been promoted by some of Section 230's most prominent reformers. In a 2017 paper, Section 230 scholar and Boston University professor Danielle Citron and Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, argued that "bad Samaritans" should be denied immunity and that companies should have to demonstrate they used a "reasonable standard of care" in removing violative content.

The DOJ's proposal would strip immunity from these bad Samaritans who intentionally seek out illicit content. That, of course, applies to a smaller subset of bad actors.

But the proposal would also create a carveout from immunity for instances in which companies fail to take reasonable steps against particularly egregious content, like child sexual abuse material, terrorist content and cyberstalking, all of which takes place on mainstream platforms like Facebook.

It would also strip immunity from companies in specific cases where they had "actual knowledge or notice" of content that was violating federal law and failed to remove it. This, too, could be a threat to any platform that hosts third-party content but hasn't taken action on every post that gets flagged as illicit. If enacted, this would likely lead tech platforms to take down far more content once it's been reported.

What else would the proposal do?

Two other big changes that would affect lots of companies have to do with narrowing the scope of content that tech platforms can take down without legal repercussions and increasing transparency around their decisions.

First, the DOJ is proposing that Congress define what it means to moderate content in "good faith." If the DOJ gets its way, that definition would require companies to moderate content "in accordance with plain and particular terms of service and accompanied by a reasonable explanation." This line item aims to address concerns that tech platforms are enforcing their terms unevenly and without much visibility into how the decisions get made.

Second, the DOJ also wants Congress to rewrite the part of Section 230 that enables tech companies to block "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable" content. The DOJ would cut "otherwise objectionable" from that line and replace it with "unlawful" and "promotes terrorism." This subtle change would drastically limit the range of content that tech companies could filter without opening themselves up to liability. For instance, it could make it harder for, say, Facebook to defend its decision to take down misinformation about voting and elections, because it doesn't neatly fit into one of those other categories.

What about encryption?

The DOJ has signaled its disdain for encryption since long before current Attorney General William Barr came to office. It's fought high-profile battles against Apple in hopes of gaining access to encrypted devices used in terrorist plots. Now, the DOJ is asking Congress to strip companies of Section 230 immunity if they "purposefully blind themselves and law enforcement" to illicit material. This would mean that in order to have immunity, companies would have to ensure that law enforcement has access to potential evidence in a "comprehensible, readable and usable format." Such a requirement would throw a wrench in Facebook's plans to encrypt messaging across its entire family of apps.

Of note: When the DOJ broke out its "key takeaways" from the 28-page proposal on its website, it left this part out completely.

Who supports this?

The DOJ's proposal received widespread praise from Republicans, who have advocated for changes to Section 230 for years. Many Republicans, including Sens. Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, have called for these changes due to what they perceive to be the suppression of conservative voices on tech platforms — despite the fact that conservatives often have the top-performing posts on sites like Facebook.

"These changes will modernize oversight of the Internet economy and hold giants like Google, Facebook, and Twitter accountable when they overstep as the online speech police," Blackburn said in a statement. "No longer will we let Big Tech hide behind these liability protections as a pretense to bully competitors or to suppress free speech."

The proposal also garnered support from online safety advocates, including Gretchen Peters, executive director of the Center on Illicit Network and Organized Crime. "I really believe there's a genuine effort to understand and respond to a public safety and consumer safety concern," Peters said. She added, however, that the parts of the proposal that deal with free speech, not criminal activity, are likely to "collapse under their own weight."

Who's against it?

The tech industry was quick to oppose the DOJ's plan, particularly the fact that it was so closely timed with Hawley's Senate bill.

"This is a coordinated attack by the administration against tech businesses to sidestep the First Amendment," Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel at the tech advocacy group NetChoice, said in a statement. "The administration is weaponizing the Department of Justice and Congress to control online speech, not stop bad actors."

In a call with reporters Wednesday, following a Wall Street Journal report that suggested the DOJ's recommendations were imminent, Facebook's Vice President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg said, "Changing significantly or eliminating the balance of responsibility and provisions about liability in Section 230 would, in our view, in the end mean less speech of all kinds appearing online."

Eric Goldman, a Section 230 expert and professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, said he objects not only to the substance of the proposal, but to the process the DOJ has undertaken. Goldman points to the fact that while Section 230 prohibits the average user from successfully suing a tech platform, the DOJ does have the ability to bring enforcement action for criminal activity that takes place online. "They're the one entity in the world that is categorically free to pursue cases without encountering Section 230," Goldman said.

Goldman said the sheer number of carveouts contained in the proposal makes "Swiss cheese" of Section 230. "It would ultimately really eliminate the immunity altogether," he said.

What happens next?

Reforming Section 230 is Congress' job, and a lawmaker will have to introduce a bill that includes the reforms suggested by the DOJ in order for these proposals to proceed.

While there's significant bipartisan interest in modifying the controversial statute in some way, it's unlikely that the reforms sanctioned by the DOJ could make it through the Democratic House and Republican Senate. Most Section 230 proposals that have been introduced in Congress largely fall along party lines. That means the new legislation introduced by Hawley and four other Republican senators on Wednesday is unlikely to move this year, either.

But the DOJ's proposal represents a new front in the battle over Section 230. As Goldman points out, it is the DOJ's job to "tell us where it can't enforce the law properly." And it's Congress' job to do something about it.

Additional reporting by Emily Birnbaum.

Power

Google wants to help you get a life

Digital car windows, curved AR glasses, automatic presentations and other patents from Big Tech.

A new patent from Google offers a few suggestions.

Image: USPTO

Another week has come to pass, meaning it's time again for Big Tech patents! You've hopefully been busy reading all the new Manual Series stories that have come out this week and are now looking forward to hearing what comes after what comes next. Google wants to get rid of your double-chin selfie videos and find things for you as you sit bored at home; Apple wants to bring translucent displays to car windows; and Microsoft is exploring how much you can stress out a virtual assistant.

And remember: The big tech companies file all kinds of crazy patents for things, and though most never amount to anything, some end up defining the future.

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.

Sponsored Content

The future of computing at the edge: an interview with Intel’s Tom Lantzsch

An interview with Tom Lantzsch, SVP and GM, Internet of Things Group at Intel

An interview with Tom Lantzsch

Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Internet of Things Group (IoT) at Intel Corporation

Edge computing had been on the rise in the last 18 months – and accelerated amid the need for new applications to solve challenges created by the Covid-19 pandemic. Tom Lantzsch, Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Internet of Things Group (IoT) at Intel Corp., thinks there are more innovations to come – and wants technology leaders to think equally about data and the algorithms as critical differentiators.

In his role at Intel, Lantzsch leads the worldwide group of solutions architects across IoT market segments, including retail, banking, hospitality, education, industrial, transportation, smart cities and healthcare. And he's seen first-hand how artificial intelligence run at the edge can have a big impact on customers' success.

Protocol sat down with Lantzsch to talk about the challenges faced by companies seeking to move from the cloud to the edge; some of the surprising ways that Intel has found to help customers and the next big breakthrough in this space.

What are the biggest trends you are seeing with edge computing and IoT?

A few years ago, there was a notion that the edge was going to be a simplistic model, where we were going to have everything connected up into the cloud and all the compute was going to happen in the cloud. At Intel, we had a bit of a contrarian view. We thought much of the interesting compute was going to happen closer to where data was created. And we believed, at that time, that camera technology was going to be the driving force – that just the sheer amount of content that was created would be overwhelming to ship to the cloud – so we'd have to do compute at the edge. A few years later – that hypothesis is in action and we're seeing edge compute happen in a big way.

Keep Reading Show less
Saul Hudson
Saul Hudson has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, especially in understanding and targeting messages in cutting-edge technologies. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, in helping companies to build passionate audiences and accelerate their growth. Hudson has reported from more than 30 countries, from war zones to boardrooms to presidential palaces. He has led multinational, multi-lingual teams and managed operations for hundreds of journalists. Hudson is a Managing Partner at Angle42, a strategic communications consultancy.
Photo: Dustin Chambers/Bloomberg via Getty Images

On this episode of the Source Code podcast: Issie Lapowsky dissects what's happening between Facebook, Google and the Australian government. Then Anna Kramer joins to explain why Atlanta is the next big U.S. tech hub.

For more on the topics in this episode:

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editor at large. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

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.

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.

Latest Stories