The existence of platforms such as Facebook, Twitter (or 'X'), and other social media networks is made possible by the above-mentioned provision. If you were to write a negative letter to Copper Beacon, and we were to publish it, we also assume responsibility as the publisher for any resulting consequences. However, if you were to publish that same letter on Facebook, Facebook would not be held accountable due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996.

Without this provision, X could be held liable for instances of hate speech on its platform. Facebook could be held responsible for the dissemination of misinformation regarding medical advice. Instagram could be implicated in cases of libel. As long as Section 230 is in force, they’re held harmless.

Section 230 shields these platforms from legal liability. They are not considered editors or publishers like newspapers; instead, they are perceived by the law as "technology companies" doing nothing more than managing a platform for users. Consequently, they have successfully absolved themselves of any responsibility, both legally and practically, for the content that appears on their platforms.

Imagine a scenario where a TV station allows any random individual to take the stage. Would the station not be held accountable for the words spoken on their airwaves, simply because they were not the original authors? Similarly, would a newspaper be immune to prosecution for libel simply because it did not compose the initial letter?

No, other platforms are responsible for the speech they amplify or replicate. This has nothing to do with the originator of the expression, but rather with the accountability and power of the platform. The printing press, which allowed newspapers to gain popularity, as well as radio and television, have been subject to these laws not because they write things, but because they disseminate them to a larger audience than regular speech ever could.

Fox News faced legal liability and ultimately settled for a significant amount of money following a lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems. The lawsuit was prompted by statements made by Fox News hosts on air. While these hosts' remarks were widely echoed by others in various contexts, Fox News, as the media enterprise in control of the platform, bore direct responsibility for them.

How it that a website, which amplifies the voices of countless users with millions of followers, is not held to the same level of accountability?

The answer is simple. When this law was enacted, lawmakers failed to understand the significant consequences. They were misled by lobbyists who claimed that online publishing was different or not "real," exempting it from the same standards as traditional media. As a result, social media companies became highly profitable and influential, hindering any discussion about Section 230.

Reconsidering Section 230 is not about stifling innovation or freedom of speech. It's about ensuring that powerful social media platforms, like all other mediums of communication, are held accountable for the content they propagate. As these platforms have become central to our daily lives and global discourse, it is only fair that they adhere to the same standards as traditional media outlets. This is not only a necessity for the preservation of democratic ideals but also for the continued positive evolution of digital media.

More Editorials