Section 230 Quotes

One thing that has become ever-clearer in this attention economy is that it involves the deliberate abdication of moral responsibility. Usually the leaders of unicorns in this space, draping themselves in the flag of “free speech,” justify and absolve themselves by relying on Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act, which offers protective cover every bit as powerful as Harry Potter's invisibility cloak. In the words of Wired's Matt Reynolds, Section 230 set the goalposts of the internet we have today.43

Systrom and Krieger didn’t want any of this to be on Instagram and knew, as the site got bigger, that they wouldn’t be able to comb through everything to delete the worst stuff manually. After just nine months, the app already hosted 150 million photos, with users posting 15 photos per second. So they brainstormed a way to automatically detect the worst content and prevent it from going up, to preserve Instagram’s fledgling brand. “Don’t do that!” Zollman said. “If we start proactively reviewing content, we are legally liable for all of it. If anyone found out, we’d have to personally review every piece of content before it goes up, which is impossible.” She was right. According to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, nobody who provided an “interactive computer service” was considered the “publisher or speaker” of the information, legally speaking, unless they exerted editorial control before that content was posted. The 1996 law was Congress’s attempt to regulate pornographic material on the Internet, but was also crucial to protecting internet companies from legal liability for things like defamation.

Section 230.55 A statute once crafted to nurture an important new technological milieu is now the legal bulwark that protects the asymmetric wealth, knowledge, and power of a rogue capitalism.

different from 3.5. However, it is different from larger values, such as 4.0 (t = 2.89, df = 9, p = .019). Another example of this is provided in the Box 12.2. Finally, note that the one-sample t-test is identical to the paired-samples t-test for testing whether the mean D = 0. Indeed, the one-sample t-test for D = 0 produces the same results (t = 2.43, df = 9, p = .038). In Greater Depth … Box 12.2 Use of the T-Test in Performance Management: An Example Performance benchmarking is an increasingly popular tool in performance management. Public and nonprofit officials compare the performance of their agencies with performance benchmarks and draw lessons from the comparison. Let us say that a city government requires its fire and medical response unit to maintain an average response time of 360 seconds (6 minutes) to emergency requests. The city manager has suspected that the growth in population and demands for the services have slowed down the responses recently. He draws a sample of 10 response times in the most recent month: 230, 450, 378, 430, 270, 470, 390, 300, 470, and 530 seconds, for a sample mean of 392 seconds. He performs a one-sample t-test to compare the mean of this sample with the performance benchmark of 360 seconds. The null hypothesis of this test is that the sample mean is equal to 360 seconds, and the alternate hypothesis is that they are different. The result (t = 1.030, df = 9, p = .330) shows a failure to reject the null hypothesis at the 5 percent level, which means that we don’t have sufficient evidence to say that the average response time is different from the benchmark 360 seconds. We cannot say that current performance of 392 seconds is significantly different from the 360-second benchmark. Perhaps more data (samples) are needed to reach such a conclusion, or perhaps too much variability exists for such a conclusion to be reached. NONPARAMETRIC ALTERNATIVES TO T-TESTS The tests described in the preceding sections have nonparametric alternatives. The chief advantage of these tests is that they do not require continuous variables to be normally distributed. The chief disadvantage is that they are less likely to reject the null hypothesis. A further, minor disadvantage is that these tests do not provide descriptive information about variable means; separate analysis is required for that. Nonparametric alternatives to the independent-samples test are the Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests. The Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests are equivalent and are thus discussed jointly. Both are simplifications of the more general Kruskal-Wallis’ H test, discussed in Chapter 11.19 The Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests assign ranks to the testing variable in the exact manner shown in Table 12.4. The sum of the ranks of each group is computed, shown in the table. Then a test is performed to determine the statistical significance of the difference between the sums, 22.5 and 32.5. Although the Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon W test statistics are calculated differently, they both have the same level of statistical significance: p = .295. Technically, this is not a test of different means but of different distributions; the lack of significance implies that groups 1 and 2 can be regarded as coming from the same population.20 Table 12.4 Rankings of

The key problem with Section 230 isn’t just the statute itself but the abuse of the statute by companies.

Section 230 has two components: The first prevents intermediaries from being held liable for the speech of their users, not unlike the protections afforded to telephone companies. This is an important provision, without which companies would be incentivized to proactively police their users’ speech, thus inhibiting them from innovation and growth. The second component gives intermediaries the ability to police their users’ speech or actions without losing their safe harbor protections.

Perhaps what we need is a new “Telecommunications Act” for the blockchain economy. The US Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a significant overhaul of broadcasting and media regulations that for the first time included consideration of the Internet. Section 230 of the Act stated, “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.”95 This opened up the floodgates for the Internet revolution to occur free of concern over being caught in the snag of retrograde regulations.

When the tech behemoths claim, as they routinely do, that they couldn’t exist without Section 230, they are only slightly exaggerating. They couldn’t exist without the new and improved Section 230 that they rewrote with the help of the courts.

Manipulative advertising based on personal characteristics is far from the passive distribution of third-party content Congress envisaged when it adopted Section 230 a quarter century ago. And behavioral ads drive many of tech platforms’ worst pathologies—the surveillance, the addiction race, the data pilfering. But Section 230’s shield from liability is worth far more to Big Tech than even behavioral advertising. Section 230 is the giant government subsidy on which Big Tech feeds and has built its empire.