Capitol riot revives calls to reform Section 230 and regulate Twitter and Facebook

While Republicans believe platforms are unfairly censoring conservative speech, some Democrats believe platforms are amplifying misinformation and extremist content.Now, Democrats have an example with which to make their case, one that directly affected almost every member of Congress.Several tech companies have either cleaned up their own platforms, removing users and posts that promoted violence and conspiracy theories, or shut off the ability of other “free speech” platforms to do the same.Nevertheless, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who sponsored a bipartisan Section 230 reform bill last March, told Recode that the Capitol attack will “renew and focus the need for Congress to reform Big Tech’s privileges and obligations. It’s doubtful that many will listen to what they have to say about Big Tech or anything else for a while.While laws that target extremist content on social media may seem like an especially attractive prospect immediately after the riot, free speech advocates warn that, like FOSTA-SESTA, any change to Section 230 may have unintended consequences.“We understand the desire to permanently suspend [Trump] now, but it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions — especially when political realities make those decisions easier,” American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) senior legislative counsel Kate Ruane said in the statement. “The government can’t require companies to remove lawful speech from their platforms, and Section 230 has no bearing on that.”What government can do, Harmon said, was pass antitrust and privacy legislation that would create more online platforms and reduce Big Tech’s dominance of the marketplace.“If there were 50 major players in the online social networking market rather than five, then the speech moderation decisions Facebook or Twitter make would not have the outsized influence they have today over online speech,” Harmon said.And there is at least one Democrat who remains opposed to Section 230 reform: Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), the law’s co-author.“Once again, I remind my colleagues that it is the First Amendment, not Section 230, that protects hate speech, and misinformation and lies, on- and offline,” Wyden told Recode. In particular, I am certain that any law intended to block vile far-right speech online would inevitably be weaponized to target protesters against police violence, unnecessary wars, and others who have legitimate reason to organize online against government action.”In one way, Cruz’s attacks on Section 230 were right: with Trump booted from the biggest websites in the world, and alternative platforms like Parler kicked off the services and distributors they need to function, Big Tech has indeed proven to be the arbiter of what speech is allowed on most of the internet.