I'm on a panel at tomorrow's DOJ Workshop on Section 230. Here is my submission. A few highlights, including a story about my amazing 7-month-old daughter: 1/16 techliberation.com/2020/02/18/my-…
First, Section 230 is a focused law that embodies a clear and conservative principle of individual responsibility. In the simplest terms, it says that individuals are responsible for their actions online, not the tools they use. 2/
Sounds obvious? That's because this is the normal way we do things in the U.S. We hold newspapers—not newsstands—liable for their words. Authors—not bookstores—accountable for their writings. So too do we hold social media users—not services—responsible for their words online. 3/
By contrast, intermediary liability means holding one person responsible for the actions of someone else. That’s unusual under our laws, and for good reason, because blaming one person for what another did can be unfair and unjust. 4/
Second, Section 230 is a focused law. Section 230 immunity only applies to third party speech. If Google posts content it created in part or whole, it can be sued for that content. Section 230 is also narrow because it doesn’t immunize platforms from federal law. 5/
Third, while imposing intermediary liability will affect companies and market competition, my biggest concern is the effect on how every day people uses these powerful tools. 6/
Platforms eliminate middlemen, reducing transaction costs. They make possible connections that never would have occurred otherwise. The distribution of news is just one type of connection. Commerce, housing, transportation, communications, and even philanthropy are others. 7/
Many such connections fit no category. A personal story: My wife and I have a 7-month-old daughter. While still in utero, she was diagnosed with a club foot, a birth defect. Thanks to the miracles of modern science this is correctable, but the process is months long. 8/
As new parents, we were a mess. We had so many questions, concerns, and worries. Our doctors were great but not always available. You know who *was* always available? 9/
The five thousand plus people in the Clubbed Foot support group on Facebook. Day or night we could hear from people we had never met but who deeply understood our struggle. And now that we’re through the hardest part we can help other parents. 10/ facebook.com/groups/1503261…
I can’t put a dollar value on this experience. It’s not the kind of thing you could build a business plan around. But it exists because Section 230 means Facebook’s lawyers don’t have to vet every post to that group. 11/
So the biggest costs from changing 230 won’t fall on platform companies or startups. It will fall on users. Platforms deputized to police their users will face little or no penalties for taking content down but expensive lawsuits for leaving it up. Result: over-removal. 12/
Unanticipated, non-commercial, easy to ignore uses of platform – like the Clubbed Foot support group – will find platforms a little less welcome. Given the huge # of user interactions on platforms, even tiny cost increases per interactions will impost significant total costs. 13/
As @DavidAFrench has noted, if we change 230, the famous & powerful will still speak loudly through gatekeepers that have long favored them. But the average, niche, unpopular, disadvantaged, & unusual will find it harder to connect with an audience. 14/ time.com/5770755/threat…
TLDR: Section 230’s principle of individual responsibility has shown the power of connecting everyday individuals. Changing it risks shutting down the voice of the everyday person and solidifying the position of already powerful speakers and gatekeepers. 15/
I am looking forward to sharing these thoughts with the DOJ and my fellow panelists tomorrow. I hope I'll make my daughter proud! END/ justice.gov/ag/webform/sec…
