Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act that was passed in 1996 is part of a federal legislation that provides immunity to social media companies like Facebook and Twitter against being sued over the content on their site. This allows them to operate without needing to moderate content. 

Here is Section 230:

“Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liability

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— 

(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).”

The translation basically means that tech companies are not the publishers of what people put on their website so they cannot be held liable for the posts people share on their platforms.

They have the right to moderate content but do not have the responsibility to do so.

Section 230 set the legal framework for the internet as it operates today. The internet- which ranges social media companies such as Instagram and YouTube and platforms such as Yelp, Reddit and more, relies heavily on user content rather than content that companies create. Without Section 230, companies would not be willing to take so many risks or permit a broad range of content from being shared.

Why Is Trump Upset?

Twitter has recently been including disclaimers on President Trump’s posts to signal them as disinformation to users on the platform. These labels have ranged from linking articles that argued for mail-in ballots to downright stating that his posts about election fraud have been proven different.

Several members of congress have claimed that tech companies are biased against conservatives while supporters of this law have echoed that it facilitates free speech. Arguments such as child trafficking and child porn generated and shared online have been used to argue against Section 230. While the intent is certainly noble and necessary, the underlying goal is to regulate tech companies and limit the application of Section 230. 

Section 230 means that companies don’t have to filter through millions of posts to verify that they are not violating any laws before allowing them to be shared on their platform. It also means that people can post whatever they want and companies would not be held responsible for the effects. Taking down or amending Section 230 to add more restriction(s) could potentially work against the very proponents of this change. Think of it this way, if tech companies are forced to be held responsible for what their users share on their sites, then wouldn’t they be more vigilant in cracking down people whose posts fall outside of the community guidelines and agreements? It could potentially make digital self-expression harder and strengthen suppression of content.

Sources: Adam Brown, Forbes; Cornell Law, Legal Information Institute,