More than 20 years, since the birth of the internet age as we know i, section 230 has provided websites we put the immunity from liability from other users post. The Electronic Frontier foundation describes important sectionos of 230 this way. This legal and policy framework has offered youtube users to upload their own videos, amazon yelps offered countless offer reviews, craigslist lads, and facebook and twitter offer social networking to billions of internet users. Given the sheer size of user generated websites, it would be impossible and feasible for online people to have objectionable content popping up on their price. In short, section 230, a lot to protect the kind of innovations that is allowed the internet to drive since 1996. And yet, over the past few years section 230 has faced heighten criticism for both the left and right. They encouraged from the left argued that social media giants enjoy special protection. They know consequences. And other critics on the right have argued that these companies have gone is it too far. In policing for these vices or have gone is it too far in policing conservative voices and enacted a bias double standard when it comes to content moderation. In light of these criticism and align we put the bipartisan political backlash against this, weve seen recalls on section 230. This debate, that we are going to discuss today and they offer you the phrase also, this time i didnt mean it especially. This is the great panel. Immediately, to my right is danielle, author of the 2014 book hate crimes in cyberspace. Also professor of law at Washington University of school of law where she teaches the right about privacy and free speech. Next to danielle is jim, refocuses about privacy issues, and over on the end is jeff, assistant professor of cyber keep security lot of the enable academy Cyber Science Department and author of the 2016 word that created the internet 26 words. Welcome all. We start with jeff what do we know for sure did reasonably for sure we put the intent behind section 230. Why did legislatures feel the need to bring it into me. Jeff there are two main reasons, we do look the legislative history and advocating for section 230. The first was there is really concern at the time of about legal that was it available to children online. There was aco series of Court Rulings on the First Amendment which basically stood for the proposition that if you did not moderate content, you could actually increase your chances of being protected from liability for all user content but if youlf started to moderate then you could expose yourself to liability for defamation and other types of things. There really was a concern that the system was giving an incentive for platforms not to moderate. So that was one driver of section 230. The other was everything about the time, 1995. The modern internet was really at its infancy and congress wanted to get regulation and lawsuit out of the way of the developmentte of this new technology. So between those two reasons, those were really the driving forces behind section 230. So is there, confusion about that original intent. Which i think youve tried to dispel we put your book. What is the confusion. It seems very straightforward and i have often talked to people involved staffers legislations. Jeff do we have all day. [laughter] i will speak on my own behalf. What was the point of this to begin we put. Jeff theres a lot of confusion. I would say the biggest bit of confusion right now is the section 230 is conditioned on neutrality. That it only applies to neutral platforms what of those might be. Rather than publishers. The plaint the point of section 230 was to eliminate that and to allow platforms to exercise discretion and figure out what their users should or should not be exposed to. And not face liabilities. So i would say that the biggest confusion. James the issues that were foremost at the time, about pornography and defamation. They were so much about political views were they . Jeff not at the time, there was a statement in the findings and the bill for something about fostering the recourse. There was recognition there eculd be free speech online. Om but there was no conditioning of neutrality in section 230s protections. Ec the title and the idea was it was applied to good samaritans. We were protecting against and filtering offensive speech. Absolutely incentive that the idea was to self moderate. To provide protection for those who are blocking and filtering offensive speech. Its completely legally protected speech but we wanted toiv synthesize. James what did they mean by offensive. Jeff twentysix words. Good faith efforts to block access to a list of types of content including other objectionable content. Congress wanted to give a very wide range of discretion to these performers. To feel free to block content and not be exposed to liability. Brief legal. Were they not already protected on the First Amendment. Did they not protect these Companies Customer so that was ati problem that led section 230 the first place, theres a lot of different First Amendment protections. One is for content treat that that was created. The rule is if you know a distributor you can only be liable for others people content. If you either knew or had reason to know, but the problem became that the court started staying if you start to moderate, you dont even receive the protection and you become aystrictly liable just like a newspaper would be for letters to the editor. That was the weird system that was created by the First Amendment. It wasnt so much the First Amendment but the common law that the courts wered looking t this new media becoming out of different places. Both ofor Platform Providers waa publisher or speaker. In my opinion, the law kind of jump ahead to i think was the right result. E but it is important that we got there through legislation rather than through continued commonlaw developments. I think of it had been taken years but it wouldve taken here is the winner we are talking about if the rule had been generated from the bottom up, through experience, i think it mightve been a stronger role in a better understood rule than one thats based more deeply in practice. Rather than getting us overr th top of legislation which was pretty good, not perfect. Seema. On history, how controversy or was it. Ro to people didnt know or understand all of the consequences that would flow out permit or was there much real debate at some. In the process. So there was a little bit of floor discussion no real opposition. It was passed. This was part of the broader Overall Telecom rules laws of 1996. Section 230 was really seen as an alternative to the Communications Decency act which ended up being put in the top telecom act. Impose all search of prohibitions. For speech that was indecent. The Supreme Court. Section 230 barely any Media Coverage at the time. What i did receive mediae there was no coverage of the fact that it was going to shield platforms from liability for most types of user content. It was really and after problem. Im curious, do we have this law the shields Internet Companies and big platforms, how did it work in upper western europe francis. Did they have their own version of sectionet 230. So they have rules. Europe has a number of different roles. It varies a little bit and when he gets into the classification of both of as a conduit or some other dive boat service. There are some cases where the courts have said not only do you have to take down user content if you get a notice complaining about it you also might have a duty to actively patrol or user content might violate not just defamation laws but hate speech laws and things like that. Its much more restrictive and really most other jurisdictions butve it is in the United States we are very unique in that respect. It may be unintentionally it protects big platforms but it also protects small platforms. I ran a psych washington wash. Com government transparency, there is nothing there but broken dreams now. [laughter] and web two shame so long, remember that phraseology. Thats when people actually started to be able able to comment and vote and have their nown material. So we had a comments section and we had little success, it was built to extend fair benefits Unemployment Benefits and i had Something Like 200,000 comments. I was the only guy in my spare time, watching what was going on on the site and of course there were people behaving horribly to undermine the conversation. There were people who were telling me that someone else was using w their name. And i was called on to moderate the situation. I wasnt cautiouslytu w using sectionse 230. I was just trying to do my very best to create a good environment. But its extraordinary like the people will go to in my case, to undermine the site because they thought i was in favor of this legislation when factor was neutral. Or is meant to be initial platform. Unfortunately the internet for all his blessings allows people to be truly wicked from behind that an amenity and they will take every effort to upset each other, they will take every step to undercut the platform itself so it is an area that is brought into 30 is the very important protection. Its not that is just to make them upset. People will use Network Tools to destroy people his lives. T to ensure they cant get a date, or keep their jobs or get a new one. They will threaten. People will post information that one can never sorta respond to. Im not a prostitute, i dont have a to sexuallytransmitted infection. That kind of mischief that weve seen isnt just hurtful things, it is speech that we would take that isnt even legallyee protected that weekend siminalize and ensure liability for and there are sites that make it a business. Out of hosting architectural pornography. And they get this we put glee say i can encourage people to produce and give me nude photos. Its a liability. I think its just important to note that the mischief isnt, and im we putpe you because i outrun current opinions we were busy filtering. We in his farmer than that. Like any wonderful tools for great things and also if we see a lot of ill illegality and destruction of lives. Indeed. We have these legislations, now very controversial. Ro and as i alluded in my remarks, for Different Reasons than from a different perspective before we get to that, you mentioned that perhaps we could all sort of organically. But given again how the internet developed, if that section 230 had not happened, what might be the internet look today and how might have evolved. Now we want to change it in an reform it. If we didnt have a right, what would it look like. You have an argument on that i think. Im a little skeptical that the common law would have developed to this extent of protection at 230 provides. I think some of the early court cases were not very well reasons or will decide that really impose significant liability. I dont think the really broad protection of section 230 provides, for thirdparty content wouldve been the same on common law. I think there probably would be in north mormon notice and takedown system where if you get notification of intentionally illegal content your choices dealer take it down or you have to stand in issues of the person who posted it and then defend it. Whichha most rational platforms will not want to do because theyre not going to want to litigate all of these defamation cases. I dont think you would see that necessarily the social media extent all of the services not coincidentally are based in the United States. Where are all of these social media giants you wroteas and you think to 30 is the big reason why. While we have them and they dont. Very much so. I think they were able to develop in the way they currently are because of section 230. We would probably have different types of services but it wouldntam have the same sort of rules that they have right now that went out section 230. Big social Media Companies like in china. Complete censorship and control. They would just look different. By posting videos. I think its right that we get the social media media that we did because of 230. Is that right orbi strong. You can also see 230 as some sort of subsidy. Liability, subsidy to businesses that cant hunt of the cost of consumers who bit liability from corporations. For social media platforms. It shame at a cost though. In victimization and select people and in some cases that are very sympathetic. Some of those negatives include speech. When your targeted and you know harassed on line, you know silent so often we forget that those negative externalities are just lost jobs and potential violence but also speech. It suddenly seems a very controversial topic right now. Roll those are externalities and sort of victims. They were really there from the beginning. I know the book, t there is so many cases people actually hurt. Extremely sympathetic stories but yet were there any calls back then and this is generating victims we do something. Or is it pretty much continued to its present date c to sort of ignore that policy makers. I think for the first decade it was not really an issue or even in the second decade there wasnt. There were some tough cases. Senatorna lieberman, the identity wanted to pressure google and youtube to take down terrorist videos. Thats like in 2004. I was just ignored. Was that, i only knew about the zephyrs at the time. The public attention to. Nearly the same. There were really tough cases in the beginning. There are a lot of people who argued theres only been difficult cases over the past two years. The second case ever litigated on section 230 is the caseer called bildt versus aol. Her mother sued aol because there was child pornography we put her son and her teenage sonn that aol was being marketed in aol chat room. She kept contacting aol and they wouldnt prevent it. That is a difficult case. Its not just like they were only defamation, easy defamation cases there were tough cases all the way in the early days. Federal criminal law, doesnt and joy that immunity. She was in negligence. Just wanted to clarify. Changing technology over overtime. In the early days the 230, maybe you had manual processes entirely. Nowadays a thing like child porn you can kind of automate so tracking,os and systems are in place we can know if there are porn files and you can review anything. Theres a case in the circuit where aol found child porn and delivered it to a Government Act for those purses. Ackerman. Its a very good opinion on his own. Automatedwr review for things tt are selfevidently criminal, seizing an area where you might be able to hold platforms. Hold them liable. Retaking stocking or defamation, its really hard for his person coming in for the first time to conversation to figure out both of someone is defaming another. What is the reality of it. When he never person contact me and said someone elses using my name. Even rare names are repeated around the world. To the argument, are dubious. I couldnt take something down because it was the same name. I dont think that the people who are faced we put these decisions are myriad of different kinds of problems and stories coming to them in the bowels and the social media organizations are going to be able to negotiate navigate those kindsto of determinations very readily. Is somewhat evident strong. Things that are so strong, liability for those platforms. His of these cases would come up and these that would be their stories. But generally this is sort of what that soundse like. Sort of not anymore. Is it the case that you have these big platforms, the been in the news and these are why now. Why now. This incredibly controversial issue was there a triggering if it or is it just that intrusive of our lives. Were taking a closer look at all of these companies and regulations and what laws apply to them. A couple of things coming together all at once. I feel like we take each thread and bring it together right. People like the Tech Companieset as much. The sonic controversial. And more zuckerberg testifying. Northeast effort theyre getting all of these wonderful opportunities for every senator and congressperson to hop in the bandwagon and say you are the problem. [laughter] you have the responsibility online. It was sort of an easy god. What else can wee throw into the mix. The tech about a country from russia and disinformation. And therefore remain the platforms for noton doing anythg about it. What they were caught off guard and underwear. Deep thanks. I dont take up the thunder, if you like will want to pitch in something. One thing i have served is b that the traditional news media perhaps its not very happy we put the Business Model of some of the large platforms. One criticism that enables those very Business Models and that is not just about moderating and shielding these companies but a key part of why these companies are worth 500 billion or a trillion dollars. They are gauged in surveillance. This amount of money, and they are feeling from new companies. One problem familiar to students and regulation is if you were to deeply cut section 230, the Big Companies would be able to navigate the law. The little onesw would be ableo try to challenge them but not costeffectivelys, go up against them. It would lock in the status quo in the marketplace. Facebook his natural decline would be delayed if not foreclosed by doing away we put 230 or deeply undercutting the protections of 230. Is there is much for the small competitors as it is we put big platforms. We can talk about that later what that might be, that would intrigue the big platforms and the smaller farms differently. Were not there together yet. Also say the larger platforms have lacked transparency. Of they started to change but it was often like a black box to figure out whats going on there. Conservatives that think that they dont understand why people are being taken down and went at that person. This is happened to me. Do i call an 800 number or what do i do. I thrive on transparency. On twitter, to discuss the statement that section 230 is terrible, enables hate. Enables hate and harassment. And it does my things two. You bring about t