Democrats' Sec. 230 bill is a dumpster fire of cluelessness that effectively wipes out protections for the entire internet while pretending it's a minor change

For the past few months we've been seeing a ton of terrible/ridiculous/awful/unconstitutio nal bills coming from mostly Republicans …

Techdirt 2021-02-06 Mike Masnick

Context & Ripple Effects

The Democratic proposal sits alongside contemporaneous coverage of the SAFE TECH Act's targeted Section 230 carve-outs for advertising and posts alleged to violate civil-rights, antitrust, cyberstalking, or human-rights laws. The significance is practical: critics treat those categories as broad enough to alter liability across routine online distribution.

The debate did not end with this proposal. A later bipartisan PACT Act revision was likewise characterized as complex and destructive, indicating that concern over expansive reform crossed party lines.

First-order effects

Democratic sponsors' proposal would remove Section 230 immunity for online services over ads and posts falling within the listed legal categories, increasing their exposure to claims tied to user content.
Platforms carrying advertising face a more immediate liability distinction than under a uniform protection, making ad-supported distribution a central target of compliance and litigation risk.

Second-order effects

Services would have stronger incentives to screen, restrict, or decline categories of user posts and advertisements that can trigger the proposed exceptions, with smaller operators facing the same legal boundaries as larger platforms.
The PACT Act's later bipartisan approach suggests Section 230 reform proposals may compete over different compliance mechanisms while preserving pressure for broader platform obligations.

Third-order effects

If exceptions framed as narrow become the legislative model, Section 230 policy shifts from a general intermediary protection toward category-by-category distribution-layer liability.
The recurring Democratic and bipartisan reform efforts point to a durable cross-party push to condition online liability protections on how platforms handle third-party content.

The trend: Section 230 reform is moving toward targeted liability carve-outs that place more responsibility for user content and advertising on online intermediaries.

Discussion

@brianroemmele Brian Roemmele on x
Mark Warner's 230 Reform Bill. As I said, the tech industry has no friends and took profoundly bad advice in their behavior and actions over the years. From 230 changes to antitrust they did not get what they paid for and this should have been obvious. https://www.techdirt.com/..…
@mattbilinsky Matt Bilinsky on x
Understatement is correct. This bill is actually intended to drive platforms to act MORE like “publishers” and moderate/censor MORE content. And smaller platforms? Forget about it. They'll get sued into oblivion since it shifts 203 from “immunity” to an “affirmative defense”. htt…
@benthompson Ben Thompson on x
“A disaster of epic proportions” is, incredibly enough, an understatement. https://twitter.com/...
@tomcoates Tom Coates on x
230 covers *any entity* that hosts content put up by members of the public. If you hold the host directly liable for *any* of it then they are forced inevitably to review *all* of it and restrict anything even vaguely legally questionable.
@jeffjarvis Jeff Jarvis on x
#230 coauthor @RonWyden: “It would devastate every part of the open internet, and cause massive collateral damage to online speech.” https://gizmodo.com/...
@thatadamguy Adam Lasnik on x
At some point, I just have to wonder if our politicians are broadly but unintentionally ignorant on internet and speech issues... or if they know better but are just willfully grandstanding. https://twitter.com/...
@epro Emil Protalinski on x
“Basically, this bill takes nearly every single idea that people who want there to be less speech online have had, and dumped it all into one bill.” Oooh fun, what could go wrong? https://twitter.com/...
@bdowney Brandon Downey on x
This rant is far more thorough my initial reaction, which is “this sounds pretty fucking dumb”. https://twitter.com/...
@decunningham2 Eric Cunningham on x
If you think they are exaggerating, they are not. This bill would make websites liable for the advertisements they host, which is absolutely insane and would lead to the death of the internet. https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@mattyglesias Matthew Yglesias on x
My mixed feelings about every Section 230 bill is that for each of them the story is: — This proposal is terrible, misunderstands the issues, and would basically kill the internet — The internet was maybe a mistake? https://twitter.com/...
@markwarner Mark Warner on x
The SAFE TECH Act doesn't interfere with free speech - it's about allowing these platforms to finally be held accountable for harmful, often criminal behavior enabled by their platforms to which they have turned a blind eye for too long. (1/8) https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@mmasnick Mike Masnick on x
My first analysis of @MarkWarner @maziehirono & @amyklobuchar's bill to “reform” Section 230. It's a disaster of epic proportions. We'd almost certainly shut down Techdirt if it becomes law. It undermines everything about the open internet. https://www.techdirt.com/...
@dellcam Dell Cameron on x
There are several big issues with the #Section230 bill introduced by Democrats today. Sen. Wyden tells me “as written, it would devastate every part of the open internet.” Other experts agree it could have major unintended consequences. https://gizmodo.com/...
@markwarner Mark Warner on x
We've seen over and over again that online advertising is a key vector for all manner of frauds and scams, in many cases targeting the most vulnerable users such as seniors. (3/8) https://qz.com/...
@tonyromm Tony Romm on x
NEW: Warner to intro new bill to rein in Section 230, essentially opening the door for web users to take legal action against Facebook, others, if viral content causes real world harm and discrimination. Many civil rights orgs back bill https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@eriqgardner Eriq Gardner on x
I don't understand how the first sentence and the second are both true but I guess I need to see the text of this Reform 230 bill. @TonyRomm https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... https://twitter.com/...
@markwarner Mark Warner on x
For years, Section 230 provided a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card to platform companies as their sites are openly and repeatedly used by bad actors to cause damage and injury. Section 230 will be brought into the present-day with the SAFE TECH Act creating targeted exceptions. (2/8)
@lawyerscomm @lawyerscomm on x
“This bill would make irresponsible big tech companies accountable for the digital pollution they knowingly and willfully produce, while continuing to protect free speech online.” -David Brody | Digital Justice Project More from @washingtonpost: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ..…
@dsmart Derek Smart on x
1) This is a pipe dream that is unlikely to make it to the floor 2) All the activities in the thread were still going on when the law containing 230 was passed. Nothing has changed 3) The FTC already has legal mandate to regulate everything in #2 4) 230 isn't going anywhere https…
@sachabaroncohen Sacha Baron Cohen on x
Newsmax shut down Mike Lindell's lies—because it can be sued! But Facebook spreads the same lies to millions—because it's legally immune (Section 230). This is insane. No more special rules for Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. Hold Mark liable. Stop the lies. Reform 230. https://twi…
@hi_pat_trick Patrick Karjala on x
@maziehirono This is a terrible piece of legislation that has good intentions, but will have the unintended effect of basically killing open discourse in online platforms. No one will want to risk the liability. Please table this bill.
@film_girl Christina Warren on x
230 isn't perfect but it is essential. If we were drafting it today, maybe it could be different. But we have what we have and the attempts at “reform” from all sides would be devastating to the Internet and speech as we know it. https://twitter.com/...
@maziehirono Senator Mazie Hirono on x
Sec 230 was supposed to incentivize internet platforms to police harmful content posted by users. Instead, the law acts as a shield allowing them to turn a blind eye. The SAFE TECH Act brings Sec 230 into the modern age and makes platforms accountable for the harms they cause. ht…
@jess_miers Jess Miers on x
“My question for the drafters is: what services do they think will still qualify for Section 230 if this reform goes through; how likely is it that those services will do what the members of Congress want; and will those services be able to afford to remain in business?” https://…
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
Thread. Senators @MarkWarner @amyklobuchar @maziehirono deserve credit for introducing this *excellent* bill to create a credible legal framework for the internet. The bill repeals key parts of Section 230, which immunizes tech platforms from liability for harm they cause. https:…
@naacp_ldf @naacp_ldf on x
“As we have repeatedly seen, these platforms are being used to violate the civil rights of Black users and other users of color by serving as virtually-unchecked homes for hateful content.” —@lisa_cylar, Director of Policy https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@efffalcon Ernesto Falcon on x
We waste a lot of time on the incorrect belief that 230 in general isn't a net positive. Of course bad things happen on the Internet, but for every bad thing no matter how terrible I've seen the open Internet used as a greater force for good. I wish the reform focus was narrow. h…
@colorofchange @colorofchange on x
After a deadly attack on the Capitol by white supremacist insurrectionists, it's past time for members of Congress to hold #BigTech accountable for enabling civil rights violations against Black communities - they can start by supporting this legislation."https://www.washingtonpo…
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
Mostly what the new bill does is say that civil rights anti-discrimination laws apply to Facebook, Google, etc. You might be asking 'wait civil rights laws don't apply to Facebook, Google, etc?!?' They do not. That's how you know that Section 230 is a complete disaster. https://t…
@tomcoates Tom Coates on x
Please believe me when I say that for all the issues I have with big tech companies and for all the work that they should be doing (and we should put legislative and social pressure on them to do) to fight abuse, these changes to 230 are just wrong. https://twitter.com/...
@joshuabhoe Joshua B. Hoe on x
Nope....this is not it JUST STOP IT Democrats, you are not helping the cause at all here https://twitter.com/...
@marcorandazza Marc J. Randazza on x
This approach is it is precisely the wrong approach. DMCA style notice-and-takedown for all harms would work. Instead, you just have a bunch of dipshits trying to stifle speech they don't like, but leaving all other harms protected. https://twitter.com/...
@jess_miers Jess Miers on x
Not to mention, Techdirt is naturally prone to a slew of defamation suits (blogging about case law tends to lend itself to that reality). If they don't shut down voluntarily, their web host could certainly do it for them given the host's newfound derivative liability risks. https…
@dellcam Dell Cameron on x
.@ericgoldman said the bill is like an “omnibus” approach to #Section230, trying to incorporate a dozen policy ideas poorly instead of carefully targeting one area of concern for reform. https://gizmodo.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@dellcam Dell Cameron on x
“This bill would have the same effect as a full repeal of 230, but cause vastly more uncertainty and confusion, thanks to the tangle of new exceptions.” - @RonWyden https://gizmodo.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@wexler Nu Wexler on x
“This legislation has some admirable goals,” Wyden said. “Unfortunately, as written, it would devastate every part of the open internet, and cause massive collateral damage to online speech.” https://gizmodo.com/...
@alex @alex on x
did a v dumb tweet earlier, mixed up wyden and warner, here's Wyden saying that Warner's section 230 bill is hot garb https://gizmodo.com/...
@johnbattelle John Battelle on x
Section 230's the elephant. Legislators seem to be the blind men. https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@andykroll Andy Kroll on x
You're going to hear *a lot more* about something called Section 230 and tech companies in the next four years. Here's the new Democratic plan to amend Sec. 230: https://www.protocol.com/...
@dandotlewis Dan Lewis on x
If Section 230 goes away/is changed, my prediction is a lot of wasted time, effort, and money in the short-term, plus a lot of missed opportunities. Long-term, we probably end up with Section 230-like caselaw anyway. (Details in thread.) https://twitter.com/...
@scottgreenfield Scott Greenfield on x
“During the drafting process, Warner, Hirono and Klobuchar's staff consulted with civil rights groups...as well as experts in online harms, including...Mary Anne Franks...Danielle Citron, who together run the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative.” It was fun while it lasted, kids. https…
@issielapowsky Issie Lapowsky on x
It takes aim at online ads and marketplace listings by removing immunity for any speech that a platform is paid to carry or played a role in creating. https://www.protocol.com/...
@glassbottommeg Megan Fox on x
Didn't expect to approve of this, but huh. Targeting paid ads and placements and store descriptions WOULD seem to fix a lot of how large orgs backed a coup without touching much else. https://twitter.com/...
@issielapowsky Issie Lapowsky on x
NEW: Big Section 230 bill out from @MarkWarner @maziehirono and @amyklobuchar. It creates new carveouts in the law designed to protect civil rights and defend against other specific online harms. It also narrows 230 to focus on speech, not all information. https://www.protocol.co…
@armandondk Armando on x
I don't know on policy but this seems good politics for Dems. https://twitter.com/...
@issielapowsky Issie Lapowsky on x
It strikes the word “information” in what @jkosseff calls the “26 words that created the internet” and replaces it with “speech” This would limit protections for a bunch of bad behavior that might not be considered speech, a change suggested by @ma_franks https://www.protocol.com…
@mmasnick Mike Masnick on x
That's because the first sentence is not accurate. https://twitter.com/...

Chronicles