Sen. Josh Hawley's bill targeting Section 230 seems largely toothless, mandating companies only adhere more closely to their own rules
Sen. Josh Hawley, one of Facebook's most vocal critics on Capitol Hill, introduced new legislation on Wednesday that would purportedly chip away …
GizmodoDell Cameron
Context & Ripple Effects
Sen. Josh Hawley'sSection 230 push has been moving fast through drafts: an Axios report tied the effort to a request from the Trump administration on June 11, a [[a:954687|Politico-sourced draft days later made protections contingent on banning behavioral ad targeting]], and on June 17 he announced a version letting consumers sue large platforms over alleged censorship. Gizmodo's read of the bill as introduced is that the operative requirement collapses into something narrower: platforms must adhere more closely to their own stated rules.
That is a retreat from his more aggressive template — the [[a:942999|2019 bill that would strip CDA 230 protections entirely from platforms with 30M+ US monthly users unless the FTC returned them after a paid audit]]. The new text keeps the target (Facebook-scale platforms) but swaps the penalty structure for a good-faith-compliance duty, which is why critics see little enforcement teeth.
First-order effects
Platforms above the 30M-user threshold, Facebook chief among them, face a duty to moderate consistently with their own published policies — a documentation-and-consistency burden rather than a change in what speech they must host or remove.
Consumers gain a statutory hook tied to platform self-declared rules under the version Hawley announced, giving litigants a new theory even if the underlying obligation is thin.
Second-order effects
As the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued about Hawley's Section 230 amendments alongside the DOJ's, any regime that exposes moderation decisions to suit risks burying platforms in legal cost and liability pressure — which pushes companies toward either stricter rule-following or vaguer rules they can follow loosely.
Rivals below the user threshold escape the mandate outright, so the bill functions as a scale-based compliance asymmetry that large incumbents must operationalize while smaller competitors do not.
Third-order effects
If the pattern holds — one bill per year, each narrower than the last, from the same sponsor who later pivoted to a Big Tech antitrust and acquisition-ban proposal — Section 230 reform becomes a recurring legislative instrument aimed at platform scale itself rather than at content outcomes.
The trend: Congress is shifting from trying to revoke Section 230 outright toward conditioning platform liability on procedural compliance, turning each bill into a test of how much leverage procedural duties exert on Facebook-scale companies.
Today I'm introducing new legislation to combat #BigTech censorship. It gives users the right to sue if the big platforms enforce their terms unfairly or unequally. Proud to be joined by @marcorubio @SenTomCotton @SenatorBraun https://www.axios.com/...
Dear @HawleyMO, thanks for giving those of us who need it a voice & an avenue to SUE big tech co's for CENSORING, SHADOW BANNING & DEMONETIZING our platforms over political FREE speech. @TeamYouTube & @TwitterSupport must surely be aware of your NEW Bill: https://www.hawley.senat…
This cause is a farce. There's no doubt we must update our laws to more effectively regulate social media companies. But this work by Hawley, backed by FedSoc, has one goal—stop the spread of liberal + progressive ideas. What they did to the “news” they will do to the Internet. h…
Cheers to Senator @HawleyMO for his visionary, bold, brilliant, and courageous leadership in reclaiming the Internet for all Americans from trillion-dollar Big Tech bullies & monopolists. We need more Josh Hawleys in Washington to help President @realDonaldTrump #DrainTheSwamp. h…
10/ With respect to @Gizmodo, the claim that this won't bother tech companies is incorrect. The argument is technically sound, but it discounts how Trump-aligned users (& courts) could ensure that social media companies are mired in ongoing legal battles. https://gizmodo.com/...
Someone pointed out I didn't mention it requires companies to more neatly compose their TOS. This is true, but it wouldn't stop them from packing said Superseding TOS with vague catch-all phrases that would kill virtually any attempt to sue under this bill.
This from Jon Berroya, interm president & CEO of the Internet Association, the trade group representing Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Seems to suggest they view the bill as raising First Amendment issues as well. https://twitter.com/...
Quick analysis of @HawleyMO's incredibly stupid and unconstitutional #Section230 reform proposal. It wouldn't fix any of the actual issues, but would be a HUGE benefit for ambulance chasing lawyers. Would create full employment for “moderation trolls” https://www.techdirt.com/...
Politicians Must Stop Protecting Social Media Billionaires who are given a free pass while putting American democracy at risk. Facebook promotes extremist groups that KILL Federal Officials and fuels conspiracies that could spread COVID-19. #Abolish230 https://www.wsj.com/...
has anyone ever produced any verifiable data showing censorship of conservatives on Facebook beyond a smattering of cases that liberals are able to counter with their own list of arbitrary suspensions? Facebook's own 3rd party audit never materialized any. https://twitter.com/...
This is a great first step in protecting free speech on social platforms. Big Tech needs to know that if they continue to target conservatives with unfair and inconsistent censorship, they risk losing their platform protections! https://twitter.com/...
I almost hope they accomplish this. Section 230 obstensibly provides an element of “safe harbor” for Twitter, Facebook and even reader comments on newspaper sites. What happens when people become accountable for their words? The people proposing this change will find out quickly.…
There isn't a thought you can express in writing that can't be shared online. If it's legal, you can find a home for it online. Perhaps not at popular sites, but your right to free speech is doing fine, even if you're booted from Facebook. #Section230 https://www.justice.gov/... …
Unsurprisingly, DoJ leads with how #Section230 needs to b reformed to go after bad actors — neglecting to mention they r already not protected by 230. https://www.justice.gov/... Because if you don't support reforms, you are a terrorist/child pornographer/drug pusher.
If you are not familiar with Section 230 protections, consider reading up on the changes being proposed. Senate GOP and the DOJ are pushing for changes that would provide them with a path for litigation against censorship of their content. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
Department of Justice recommends that lawmakers adopt new legislation that would hold Facebook, Google and Twitter liable for the content posted online. They also seek to force tech giants to be more transparent about their content-moderation decisions. https://www.washingtonpost…
Hey remember that time the stalkers & trolls doxed children, posted unauthorized pictures of other people's children, stalked ex-spouses etc Yet when those tweets were reported Twitter was like - no violation. So these specific carve outs are a good thing https://www.justice.gov/…
Tech companies have brought this on themselves. They need a better business model than monetizing hate. extremism and xenophobia. They have made us worse than we were before they existed https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
A key theme in the DOJ proposal is that platforms should not be eligible for 230 immunity if they're operating in “bad faith.” This theme — critiquing 230's Good Samaritan provision — also appears in Sen. Hawley's bill today and Trump's executive order.
Big Tech must be held accountable. I sent a letter asking the @FCC to provide clarity on #Section230. I also cosponsored @HawleyMO's bill to more clearly define Section 230 to prevent Big Tech from stifling Americans' right to free speech. It must end. https://twitter.com/...
I'm glad to see Attorney General Barr taking action to roll back Section 230 immunity. Google — along with every other big tech company — shouldn't be allowed to get away with content filtering or censorship. Section 230 must be repealed! https://twitter.com/...
By discriminating against conservatives, like @Google is doing to @FDRLST, big tech is making a great case that it should lose its legal liability protections under Section 230.
#BREAKING DOJ set to roll back immunity protections for sites like Facebook, Twitter and other social media. These sites are no longer platforms they are now Publishers and can get sued for libel and censorship! https://twitter.com/...
NEW: The DOJ has issued a proposal that would see Congress lay down more rules around how platforms can moderate content on their websites, and open them up to additional liability. https://www.axios.com/...
UPDATE: DOJ unveils proposal to hold Facebook, Twitter, etc liable for harmful content online. Wide-ranging recommendations could open door for enforcement on political bias and potentially target tech on encryption. More details here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...