Josh Hawley Profile picture
Christian, constitutional lawyer, husband to Erin, Dad to Elijah, Blaise and Abigail, U.S. Senator for Missouri

Jun 4, 2020, 6 tweets

Okay, let’s get some facts straight. This article perpetuates a distorted history of Section 230 that I notice is becoming common in some quarters. Myth: Under Section 230, tech platforms & other publishers are treated the same; no special treatment nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/…

Uh, no. This mistake comes from lack of familiarity with the case law. Courts have interpreted 230 to allow platforms to alter & modify 3d party content *without being treated* like a publisher. Backpage, for example, was helping design 3d party content & still claiming immunity

In other words, under the guise of “content moderation,” tech platforms are now acting like traditional publishers but without the liability

Another myth: 230 was meant to reduce liability for tech companies. Not really. The Communications Decency Act IMPOSED liability on tech platforms for obscene content directed at children. 230 was added to give platforms immunity from suit to take down content (in good faith)

But courts rewrote the statute over the years, eliminating the obscenity requirements, eliminating distributor liability (for content known to be illegal), & expanding immunity. So now tech platforms can alter, modify, or moderate content, all WITHOUT being treated as publishers

This is, to put it mildly, not what Congress wrote. Which is yet another reason why reform is needed

Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.

A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.

Keep scrolling