Senator Mark Warner Repeats Senator Ted Cruz's Mythical, Made Up, Incorrect Claims About Section 230
from the not-how-it-works,-senator dept
Senator Mark Warner was supposed to be the "tech savvy" Senator. He's not really showing that. He's been leading the charge to regulate various parts of the internet, which might be fine if he knew what the fuck he was talking about. But, as is made clear in his latest interview with Newsweek, he's extremely confused about the legal underpinnings of the internet. Specifically, he is repeating Senator Ted Cruz's myth that Section 230 was designed to only apply to "neutral" platforms that don't moderate.
Can you explain Section 230?
Section 230 was called the Communications Decency Act in the late '90s, and at that moment in time, there was a decision made that social media companies, and their connections, were going to be viewed as kind of just dumb pipes, not unlike a telco. The platform companies would have no obligation for the content that went over their networks. In the late '90s, that might have made sense. But in 2019, when 65 percent of Americans get some—or all—of their news from Facebook and Google, there is clearly some curation going on.
This is literally the opposite of truth. It is the opposite of what happened and is the opposite of why Section 230 was put in place. As we've discussed over and over again, Section 230 was a direct response to the ruling in Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, in which Prodigy (an ISP, not a "social network") was deemed liable for content it had not moderated, because it did heavy moderation on its forums in an effort to be "family friendly." The point of Section 230 was to encourage moderation, and to not have internet services be "dumb pipes."
Senator Warner might know this if he just read the law. There's a whole section on how the law is designed to encourage more moderation by the platforms, and then it says directly:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
That's the law encouraging sites to moderate.
Senator Warner's description is just repeating the myth that Senator Cruz has been stating for over a year. We weren't surprised that other members of Cruz's party were repeating that nonsense, but Warner's party had mostly been making different stupid comments about Section 230, so it's disappointing to see him revisit this myth.
Other parts of the interview are actually good -- and he even brings up that interoperability and the ability to move to a competing service with your data might be a better approach than breaking up the big internet companies. And, on that, he's correct. But if he's premising his decisions regarding 230 on a history that gets the law literally exactly backwards, it's difficult to put much faith in him getting any changes correct.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: intermediary liability, mark warner, neutrality, section 230, ted cruz
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Reality - what a concept" seems to be the operative phrase guiding Washington these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Pipes
Now of course Big Dumb Pipes is also something we want from our ISPs.
Not wanting them to monitor, re-direct, meter or censor our pipes at the ISP level - that is an important thing. And we aren't going to get it without a little government regulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Pipes
Aside from stopping metering and throttling, you can stop the monitoring by encrypting the information that goes through these Big Dumb Pipes, which is already happening to some degree with the move to HTTPS and DOH.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some lawmakers apparently think the government should compel privately-owned platforms to host speech it wouldn’t otherwise host. I wonder how they’d feel about that if they were the owners of those platforms. Someone should ask them about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
regulate internet
"He's been leading the charge to regulate various parts of the internet, which might be fine...."
what parts of the internet would be fine to regulate?
how do you prevent powerful Federal officials like Senator Warner from implementing harmful regulatory rules?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: regulate internet
How many people just want the politicians to get the fuck out of our faces?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: regulate internet
How many people just want the politicians to do the jobs we hired them for, not the ones they are being bribed/lobbied to perform?
Eliminate all campaign financing, every candidate gets the same package (facebook page, twitter account, etc) and they have to do what they can to attract votes without spending any additional funds... I'm sure they would still have 'volunteers' willing to work for their campaigns, right (I mean not everyone is there just for the freebies, or not).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: regulate internet
"what parts of the internet would be fine to regulate?"
The parts that monopolistic corporations tend to abuse when left to their own devices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately, most laws are made and remade and mismade by truly stupid and clueless people who only are where they are due to money donated for future favors. (this is what lobbyists are for and why PACs were made legal)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh dear
Its not a good situation when the people writing and approving law, don't know how to read it (or the history that generated a law).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another series of tubes man.
“A series a pipes”
A sewer is not a “series of pipes” it’s a collection of treatment facilities that run along a groundswell and”Rant continues forever while school house rock theme plays”
This guy could dumbed off by taking a tour of youtube while they brag about pwning the libs and showing him how many accounts of people they have saying stuff he likes are on the site lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The NYT does have someone that understands 230
Just let Sarah Jeong proof any article that even mentions 230, before it's published.
She gets it right: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/opinion/section-230-political-neutrality.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]