Thread by @WIRED

Depending on who you ask, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is either an existential threat to US democracy or the only bulwark that can uphold free speech on the internet.

Both are wrong. Here’s the true story of Section 230 1/ wired.trib.al/5rpJMkk

Passed in 1996, 230 prevents internet companies from being held responsible for what people post and share. For two decades, it was an obscure part of online life. Then, as concerns arose over the power of online platforms, 230 became a target of bipartisan hostility 2/

Democrats argue that Section 230 lets companies get away with doing too little moderation; Republicans tend to say it lets them get away with too much. There may be just enough bipartisan overlap for reform legislation to make it through Congress 3/

While some of the people who want to repeal it don’t know what they’re talking about, the law’s most ardent supporters—who insist alterations to 230 would bring the internet crashing down—can be full of it too 4/

Consider our neighbors to the North. Canada has nothing analogous to Section 230, and its libel law is more pro-plaintiff because it doesn’t have the strong protections of the First Amendment. But user-generated content there? Still alive and well 5/

We’re probably too far into the Internet Age to ditch Section 230 and let the courts figure it all out from scratch, so the question becomes how to change the law to address its worst side effects without placing internet companies under impossible legal burdens 6/

In this subscriber-exclusive, @GiladEdelman traces 230’s history—how it’s been interpreted and misinterpreted over the years. The picture that emerges is very different from the one painted by either side of the kill-it-or-keep-it debate 7/ wired.trib.al/5rpJMkk

Not a subscriber? Sign up here for less than $1 per month and get unlimited access our longform features and tech news 8/ wired.trib.al/BMxcvqp