Senate Judiciary Probes for Section 230 Solutions

the statutory language of Section 230 supports the “super immunity” that protects platforms from liability when they use algorithms to amplify content and profit. University of Washington law professor Eric Schnapper, who recently argued two cases on behalf of social media victims before the Supreme Court, told Hawley the text separates concepts like merely hosting content from boosting it. But it would help if Congress clarified language in the statute, said Schnapper. Hawley asked Schnapper for a specific legislative recommendation for how to fix platforms’ affirmative content recommendations. Schnapper told him the issue is “too complicated” to offer legislative language on the spot, but he’s happy to work with Hawley’s office on a proposal. The Supreme Court recognizes online content is often promoted, sometimes in a “very addictive way to kids,” said Senate Technology Subcommittee Chairman Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. Quoting Chief Justice John Roberts from the recent oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google, he said online videos don’t “appear out of thin air. They appear pursuant to the algorithms.” Though Justice Elena Kagan admitted she and her colleagues aren’t internet experts, they understand algorithms play a role, said Blumenthal. There’s rare Judiciary Committee consensus on the need to better protect children online, said Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill. Congress should do something to “make Section 230 make sense,” he said: Something needs to change so platforms have incentives to protect children. The case law on Section 230 doesn’t provide the necessary remedies “quickly enough or thoroughly enough,” said Blumenthal: The internet is no longer a “neutral conduit.” The common ground on Section 230 “boils down” to Congress giving victims their day in court, which Section 230 has prevented for “too many years,” said Hawley. He said he hopes the Supreme Court will “remedy” some of the issues with Section 230 in the Gonzalez case (see 2302210062).