Before Hearing, Reddit CEO Warns of Major Impacts From Section 230 Tinkering

The statute allows platforms like Reddit to flourish by fostering good-faith content moderation, Huffman writes. His platform’s moderation structure, which functions like a democracy, relies on the statute. Amending it could result in regulatory burdens that further solidify dominance of large platforms over smaller ones like Reddit, which has about 500 employees, he says.

Google plans to defend Section 230. Without the statute, platforms either wouldn't filter content at all, resulting in more objectionable material, or would over-filter, raising speech issues, says Global Head-Intellectual Property Policy Katherine Oyama. Both scenarios harm users and industry, she argues.

Congress should establish a commission on moderation issues, said U.S. Naval Academy assistant professor of cybersecurity law Jeff Kosseff in an interview. Now, it’s an anecdotal debate, he said: Some argue platforms are moderating too much, which is censorship, and others say there’s not enough moderation. It’s surprising Congress didn’t give Section 230 a hard look sooner, he said.

Because platforms aren’t liable, there’s no incentive to moderate, said Common Sense Media Policy Counsel Amina Fazlullah. And platforms profit from maximizing user interaction with extreme, eyeball-grabbing content, she told us.

The hearing has trade implications (see 1908060064), as language in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement mirrors Section 230, according to House Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore. In August, they asked that U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer not to include such language in the USMCA, given the ongoing policy debate. Pallone and Walden later asked Lighthizer to testify at Wednesday’s hearing. He declined (see 1910100025).

Section 230 liability protections make it easier for platforms to moderate, not harder, said NetChoice Vice President Carl Szabo in an interview. Unmoderated platforms like 8chan, rife with dangerous content and groups, aren’t affected by Section 230, given their hands-off approach, he argued.

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Vice President Daniel Castro dismissed arguments that industry profits from extreme content. Different platforms take very different approaches to establish communities, he said, citing Reddit's unique moderation approach. The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act and Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act resulted in platforms like Craigslist banning legal activity, or essentially censorship, he argued. That shows that weakening the liability shield has unintended consequences, he said.

Consumer advocacy witnesses plan to slam industry Wednesday for inaction. Courts use Section 230 to absolve “platforms of liability even though they designed their sites to enhance the visibility of illegal activity and to ensure that the perpetrators could not be identified and caught,” says Boston University law professor Danielle Citron. She suggests Congress implement a “reasonable standard of care” to reduce illicit activity without interfering with a “vibrant internet.”

Congress should “create legal and financial incentives to hold tech firms accountable when they are knowingly or negligently facilitating illegal activity,” says Alliance to Counter Crime Online Executive Director Gretchen Peters. She recommends Congress strip immunity for hosting terror and “serious crime” content and create rules for reporting crime and terror activity.

Meanwhile, Electronic Frontier Foundation Legal Director Corynne McSherry provided testimony defending the statute: “The freedom that Section 230 afforded to Internet startups to choose their own moderation strategies has led to a multiplicity of options for users -- some more restrictive and sanitized, some more laissez-faire. That mix of moderation philosophies contributes to a healthy environment for free expression and association online.”