Section 230 is perhaps the greatest Big Government crony gift to Big Business in human history. Big Tech can do…whatever it wants. And can’t be sued by anyone for anything.
Those of us who have long sought its end were last week heartened a bit by this….
Germany’s Ruling Will Reshape the Internet, Ends ‘Section 230’ Shield for AI:
“A court has held Google legally liable for false information generated by its (Artificial Intelligence) AI search tools, stripping away a critical legal shield the company has relied on for decades….
“For the past 30 years, Section 230 has protected internet platforms like Google, Facebook, or Reddit from being treated as the ‘publisher or speaker’ of information provided by someone else, thus tossing out all lawsuits.
“AI sets that precedent on its head. Because the AI blends, synthesizes, and outputs a unique response, the court decided Section 230 does not apply.”
Long before AI hit the mainstream, the Big Tech companies have actually been doing what can best be described as the Section 230 Shuffle.
Big Tech companies claim to be a “mindless platform” – when they want Section 230 immunity. “We aren’t responsible for what others publish on our platform.”
Except they are constantly exerting authority over what others publish on their platform. They ban, shadow ban and censor people ALL THE TIME. Which means they’re not exactly a “mindless platform.”
And when anyone wants to address this titanic hypocrisy? Big Tech demands their First Amendment “publisher or speaker” rights. “We have the right to allow or not allow any speech we wish.”
Except you can’t – if you want to receive your Section 230 “mindless platform” protections.
Does everyone now see how unconstitutional Section 230 is? And not just because of the First Amendment. Also the Fourteenth:
“…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I can sue my neighbor for slipping and falling in his driveway. But I can’t sue the richest companies in human history for…anything? (Several court rulings have subsequently expanded Section 230 to protect Big Tech from…everything.)
That is hardly “equal protection of the laws.” There is nothing constitutional about Section 230.
The German ruling specifically addresses Section 230 – and AI. When you now search using Google, the top of their Results Page 1 is almost always their AI summary about your query. The German court ruled that Google developed its AI, its AI generates its results – so Google is responsible for those results.
That’s a definite crack in the Section 230 armor. But this was a German court ruling. At best tangentially US-precedent setting. And it only addresses AI results. Well, in the US in March this happened:
Meta’s $375 Million Verdict Signals Shift in Platform Safety:
“A New Mexico jury has found Meta liable for misleading consumers regarding platform safety, marking the first time a jury has held the social media giant legally responsible for harms occurring on its services, including child sexual exploitation.
“For global C-suite executives, the verdict signals a shift in judicial appetite for holding big tech companies accountable for platform design choices and internal transparency.”
This is a much bigger crack in the Section 230 armor. Big Tech companies are given some exemptions to the “mindless platform” doctrine. Perhaps chief amongst them? Big Tech is allowed to remove content detrimental to children.
New Mexico’s jury drove right through Section 230’s hypocrisy gap. “Platform? Publisher? We don’t care. Guilty.”
And We the People sincerely thank them for doing it.
Because cronyism anywhere? Is a detriment to freedom and good policy everywhere.
Section 230 is really bad cronyism. Which has resulted in really bad policy.
As courts at home and abroad are helping us demonstrate?
It’s time to end it.