Michael McGrady

Why are people calling for Section 230 to be repealed?

Former president Donald Trump was an outspoke critic of Section 230. President Biden is also a critic. Both presidents have their reasons. But the one thing that both presidents miss is their total mischaracterization of how information is shared on platforms and who is liable.

Gonzalez v. Google was taken up by the Supreme Court recently. This case grants the court the ability to clarify what is known as the safe-harbor provision. In simpler terms, these words immunize a platform like Twitter or Instagram from any legal liability for actions and words spoken by third-party publishers, or users, who propagate certain beliefs and ideas. It would be ideal if the high court provided much-needed clarity while keeping the core of the law intact. To do anything more is a disservice to those who rely on Section 230 — namely, every web user.

But this is where moral panic comes into play.

Moral panic is a viable and pervasive tool for change. That change, nonetheless, is not always a result of positivity. Effective moral panics have direct consequences and unintended ones. If the world were perfect, the internet would be a place for all to share their ideas and beliefs with no judgment and mutual respect among users. That isn’t the case, though. As cultures evolve on an information superhighway like the modern variations of the internet, people will gravitate to the group of like-mindedness that appeals to them. This phenomenon is called digital tribalism.

A digital tribe is a slang term, in all respects, used to refer to online communities of people who share a common interest or belief and who are usually loosely affiliated through channels like social media or internet forums. Digital tribes are distributed worldwide, with no real or clear centralization. These groups, like a tribe or small society, are further dissected into a “clan” that has unique sets of customs, beliefs and cultural values. Often, these activities differentiate members of the clan from real-life activities. Further, these people in the clans are much more inclined to engage in defense of their shared ideas and identities on a social network or over the internet rather than they would face to face due to the classic “us versus them” dynamic.

For example, imagine a Facebook group of anti-vaccine activists during the COVID-19 pandemic. The onset of the pandemic, especially among the right-wingers in these groups, prompted an outrage that the government is trying to control human autonomy and health by forcing a round of vaccines for the virus on humans in some twisted plot to implant a tracking chip or device of some sort.

They blame Bill Gates and the liberal elites for manufacturing something fake and using their so-powerful sway on the media and the White House. The members start to think that these are truthful statements in spite of the fact that they are not. Facebook, as a social media platform that is privately owned, has begun to crack down on pandemic-related fake news and instances of misinformation and disinformation. The group is then taken down as a result of this policy, and its members migrate to other clans and start alarming censorship by big tech.

Someone in the group suddenly feels it’s the fault of not only big tech but the liberal elites and calls out Section 230, as Trump did, and others trumpet the call to repeal the law that enables them to make false claims on the internet with absolutely no punishment. This leads to the makings of a moral panic and gathers the attention of influential conservatives who want to drag every senior executive at Facebook in front of a congressional committee to further justify the need to repeal the law. All the while, members of the banned Facebook group continue to spread lies and misinformation and do so on the web platforms that self-regulate themselves.

The cycle continues, and the moral panic grows. So, what do we do?

Frankly, and I hate to be so simplistic, but the platforms and their algorithms aren’t necessarily to blame for what people publish on their sites.

Platforms have the right to remove misinformation and disinformation and those who spread it, in the spirit of the safe harbor of Section 230 and the right to free speech online.

Michael McGrady focuses on the adult entertainment industry, harm reduction and drug legalization. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Newsletter