Source Code: Your daily look at what matters in tech.

source-codesource codeauthorIssie LapowskyNoneWant your finger on the pulse of everything that's happening in tech? Sign up to get David Pierce's daily newsletter.64fd3cbe9f
×

Get access to Protocol

Your information will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy

I’m already a subscriber
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.

Protocol | Workplace

In Silicon Valley, it’s February 2020 all over again

"We'll reopen when it's right, but right now the world is changing too much."

Tech companies are handling the delta variant in differing ways.

Photo: alvarez/Getty Images

It's still 2021, right? Because frankly, it's starting to feel like March 2020 all over again.

Google, Apple, Uber and Lyft have now all told employees they won't have to come back to the office before October as COVID-19 case counts continue to tick back up. Facebook, Google and Uber are now requiring workers to get vaccinated before coming to the office, and Twitter — also requiring vaccines — went so far as to shut down its reopened offices on Wednesday, and put future office reopenings on hold.

Keep Reading Show less
Allison Levitsky
Allison Levitsky is a reporter at Protocol covering workplace issues in tech. She previously covered big tech companies and the tech workforce for the Silicon Valley Business Journal. Allison grew up in the Bay Area and graduated from UC Berkeley.

After a year and a half of living and working through a pandemic, it's no surprise that employees are sending out stress signals at record rates. According to a 2021 study by Indeed, 52% of employees today say they feel burnt out. Over half of employees report working longer hours, and a quarter say they're unable to unplug from work.

The continued swell of reported burnout is a concerning trend for employers everywhere. Not only does it harm mental health and well-being, but it can also impact absenteeism, employee retention and — between the drain on morale and high turnover — your company culture.

Crisis management is one thing, but how do you permanently lower the temperature so your teams can recover sustainably? Companies around the world are now taking larger steps to curb burnout, with industry leaders like LinkedIn, Hootsuite and Bumble shutting down their offices for a full week to allow all employees extra time off. The CEO of Okta, worried about burnout, asked all employees to email him their vacation plans in 2021.

Keep Reading Show less
Stella Garber
Stella Garber is Trello's Head of Marketing. Stella has led Marketing at Trello for the last seven years from early stage startup all the way through its acquisition by Atlassian in 2017 and beyond. Stella was an early champion of remote work, having led remote teams for the last decade plus.
Protocol | China

Livestreaming ecommerce next battleground for China’s nationalists

Vendors for Nike and even Chinese brands were harassed for not donating enough to Henan.

Nationalists were trolling in the comment sections of livestream sessions selling products by Li-Ning, Adidas and other brands.

Collage: Weibo, Bilibili

The No. 1 rule of sales: Don't praise your competitor's product. Rule No. 2: When you are put to a loyalty test by nationalist trolls, forget the first rule.

While China continues to respond to the catastrophic flooding that has killed 99 and displaced 1.4 million people in the central province of Henan, a large group of trolls was busy doing something else: harassing ordinary sportswear sellers on China's livestream ecommerce platforms. Why? Because they determined that the brands being sold had donated too little, or too late, to the people impacted by floods.

Keep Reading Show less
Zeyi Yang
Zeyi Yang is a reporter with Protocol | China. Previously, he worked as a reporting fellow for the digital magazine Rest of World, covering the intersection of technology and culture in China and neighboring countries. He has also contributed to the South China Morning Post, Nikkei Asia, Columbia Journalism Review, among other publications. In his spare time, Zeyi co-founded a Mandarin podcast that tells LGBTQ stories in China. He has been playing Pokemon for 14 years and has a weird favorite pick.
Power

The video game industry is bracing for its Netflix and Spotify moment

Subscription gaming promises to upend gaming. The jury's out on whether that's a good thing.

It's not clear what might fall through the cracks if most of the biggest game studios transition away from selling individual games and instead embrace a mix of free-to-play and subscription bundling.

Image: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Subscription services are coming for the game industry, and the shift could shake up the largest and most lucrative entertainment sector in the world. These services started as small, closed offerings typically available on only a handful of hardware platforms. Now, they're expanding to mobile phones and smart TVs, and promising to radically change the economics of how games are funded, developed and distributed.

Of the biggest companies in gaming today, Amazon, Apple, Electronic Arts, Google, Microsoft, Nintendo, Nvidia, Sony and Ubisoft all operate some form of game subscription. Far and away the most ambitious of them is Microsoft's Xbox Game Pass, featuring more than 100 games for $9.99 a month and including even brand-new titles the day they release. As of January, Game Pass had more than 18 million subscribers, and Microsoft's aggressive investment in a subscription future has become a catalyst for an industrywide reckoning on the likelihood and viability of such a model becoming standard.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt
Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.
Protocol | Policy

Lina Khan wants to hear from you

The new FTC chair is trying to get herself, and the sometimes timid tech-regulating agency she oversees, up to speed while she still can.

Lina Khan is trying to push the FTC to corral tech companies

Photo: Graeme Jennings/AFP via Getty Images

"When you're in D.C., it's very easy to lose connection with the very real issues that people are facing," said Lina Khan, the FTC's new chair.

Khan made her debut as chair before the press on Wednesday, showing up to a media event carrying an old maroon book from the agency's library and calling herself a "huge nerd" on FTC history. She launched into explaining how much she enjoys the open commission meetings she's pioneered since taking over in June. That's especially true of the marathon public comment sessions that have wrapped up each of the two meetings so far.

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

Latest Stories