In a Q&A, Joe Biden says Section 230 should be immediately revoked for Facebook and other platforms and that Zuckerberg should be submitted to civil liability
That convergence matters because it removes the 'leave 230 alone' option from the table — when both the critic demanding repeal and the beneficiary proposing conditions agree the statute must change, the argument shifts entirely to whose conditions win.
First-order effects
Facebook loses its statutory shield under Biden's proposal, exposing the company — and Zuckerberg personally, whom he names for civil liability — to lawsuits over user-posted content that Section 230 currently blocks.
Second-order effects
Zuckerberg's response strategy in the related coverage is preemption: by advocating his own conditional-reform framework before Congress, he tries to convert an existential repeal threat into a negotiation over the terms of protection.
Third-order effects
If the pattern holds, platform immunity stops being a default and becomes contingent on demonstrated moderation performance — making every major platform a lobbyist for the specific liability conditions it can best satisfy, and turning content-removal capability into a compliance function with legal weight.
The trend: Section 230 is shifting from settled background law to actively negotiated policy, with platforms racing to define the conditions of their own liability before legislators do.
i have been trying to figure out this anecdote for.... a while this morning. https://twitter.com/...
@fuzheado
Andrew Lih on x
In contrast to the @wikipedia fundraising messages that describe a hypotehtical risk about its future, revoking Section 230 “immediately” as suggested by Joe Biden would be an actual death blow to it and all content sites https://twitter.com/...
@chafkin
Max Chafkin on x
wow Biden ripped Zuckerberg, called for a repeal of section 230 and referred to a nameless near-billionaire as “one of the little creeps” https://www.nytimes.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@caseynewton
Casey Newton on x
The weakness of his logic here is staggering, and disqualifying https://twitter.com/...
@chrismessina
@chrismessina on x
So much for Biden being tech friendly. https://twitter.com/...
@raju
Raju Narisetti on x
Really important to understand unintended consequences of proposed public/regulatory policy. This would be terrible for all the good that @Wikipedia & many other non-profiteering, vital knowledge projects do. @verge: @JoeBiden wants to revoke #Section230 https://www.theverge.com/…
@petersagal
Peter Sagal on x
It is! He alternates from Abe Simpson to Lyndon Johnson to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. https://twitter.com/...
@fuzheado
Andrew Lih on x
The implications of revoking Section 230: every single social media site in the United States would need to be immediately shuttered. Maybe @Wikipedia too. https://twitter.com/...
@kellymakena
Makena Kelly on x
Joe Biden says he wants Section 230 “revoked, immediately.” He's the only presidential candidate to call for this kind of dramatic change to the law. https://www.theverge.com/...
@mikebutcher
Mike Butcher on x
Facebook controls an algorithm. Wikipedia doesn't have one. A bulletin board doesn't have one. Isn't the point that the publisher of the algorithm is a publisher?
@qjurecic
@qjurecic on x
I say this as someone who is deeply critical of 230: this is a TERRIBLE idea and speaks to a lack of understanding on Biden's part of the issues at stake https://www.theverge.com/...
@fuzheado
Andrew Lih on x
I'm pretty sure Biden has not thought through all the ramifications revoking Section 230 for US-based Internet content sites, most of all, @Wikipedia https://twitter.com/...
@vanitaguptacr
Vanita Gupta on x
“Biden called for the internet industry's sweeping legal immunity over user-generated content to be ‘immediately’ removed in an interview published today...” Sounds wonky but this is significant. https://www.politico.com/...
@walterisaacson
Walter Isaacson on x
He is right. Brave stance. https://twitter.com/...
@cwarzel
Charlie Warzel on x
In our interview with Biden he suggested he disagreed with Obama in being less critical of Silicon Valley '08-'16. But, as @drew_tomlinson pointed out to me just now, in 2015 he wasn't exactly critical of tech companies like...uh...Theranos https://twitter.com/...
@gormogons
@gormogons on x
GP This is a bad position which will cripple America's tech (social media) industry. https://twitter.com/...
@ceciliakang
Cecilia Kang on x
Section 230 is on the plate, folks. Biden: Tech's liability shield ‘should be revoked’ immediately https://www.politico.com/... via @politico
@evanhamilton
Evan Hamilton on x
Facebook's actions and Section 230 are not the same thing. This is dangerous thinking that could significantly destroy internet communities and free speech. https://twitter.com/...
@caseynewton
Casey Newton on x
@cwarzel what worries me is that he's just mad at Facebook and has decided to destroy the internet because of it
@cwarzel
Charlie Warzel on x
@CaseyNewton i was not expecting and was pretty shocked he said it...having...not previously addressed that anywhere else to my knowledge
@megancgraham
Meg Graham on x
Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, he says in his NYT editorial board interview. The law provides that tech companies should not be liable for 3rd-party content on their platforms. More context here from @lauren_feiner https://www.cnbc.com/..…
@issielapowsky
Issie Lapowsky on x
That AND floating the possibility that Zuckerberg colluded with the Russians? “The idea that he cooperates with knowing that Russia was engaged in dealing with using the internet, I mean using their platform, to try to undermine American elections. That's close to criminal.” http…