Introduction
During the development of the most noteworthy law in 1996 mandated to govern speeches posted on the internet, neither did Google, nor Mark Zuckerberg's innovations exist. Through the Federal law, section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act, young internet organizations have grown bigger and greater (Rogers, Kovaleva & Rumshisky, 2019). Such companies include YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. This section was established due to lawsuits against Internet service providers in the early 1990s. The main issue in question was to clarify the liabilities of internet service providers to their users. The making of section 230 intended to identify if the internet service providers play the role of publishers or distributors of what users post on their sites and hold them responsible for any 'bad' content (Hwang, 2020). The primary concept of Section 230 is the separability of the liabilities for users and internet providers. The section defines the role of the internet providers in ensuring that the content they air is decent and does not violate other internet users' rights. Moreover, the
section provides a clause that protects service providers; for instance, an individual user would be called in court to respond to inappropriate air content. This section has allowed the internet providers to screen and block any content that they may feel is indecent and violates other people's rights.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
This paper will evaluate and discuss the positive and negative implications that section 230 has had on both internet users and service providers. The report aims at explaining the mystery and controversy on whether section 230 protects service providers and internet users or restricts freedom of expression on social networks. Some keywords that will be used in further research on my topic include Social Media Bias, Censorship on Social Media, Section 230, Communications Decency Act and many more search terms.
Literature Review
Social media has several implications for democracy. Across the globe, social media have allowed people to have a say in the government decision-making process. The take part in discussing issues and organize causes and even hold their leaders accountable. According to Chakrabarti (2016), social media makes it easy for individuals to have a government voice to practice their legal rights. The amplification of social media takes place at the time of unrest such ad during protests and in moments of transition, such as in elections. During demonstrations, social media will key in bringing people together and assist them in the organization. However, at a time of transition, such as politics, social media can have unintended effects such as creating silos and spreading rumors. Section 230 law comes into play when there is leaking of stories on various social media platforms. That will play a key role in verifying the source of some information and giving the users the assurance, they need. In the absence of assurance, social media is key in the instigation of negative politics. The instigation will fuel fear in people, and thus social media undermines the democracy of the people.
Cramer (2020) suggests that there is ethical consideration in Section 230 of the Communications Decency. One of the ethical considerations is accountability. There is a need for everyone who posts information on various social media platforms, especially in an election year, to take full responsibility for what they post. They should consider the implication that the information will have on others is it is false. Another ethical consideration is not being biased. It is good for the act not to control what people can view on various social media platforms. However, they don't have the mandate to collaborate with one political side and undermine the opponents. The act is considered to be unethical, and there is a need for equality. They are biased means that the outcomes of the elections will be affected. Every citizen has a right to access information and the right of speech. However, they should consider the validity of their information before letting other people know their opinions on the discussion subject. Communication decency means that the information provided is true and not altered to gain an audience of supporters. Thus, other than being liable, the various social media platforms should take accountability for what people see and read online.
Gardner (2018) presents a different suggestion on the implication of social media information on humans. According to Gardner (2018), social media is a key tool for initiating violence, bigotry, and hatred. People will take sides when it comes to political matters. In the United States, race and fight are between the republicans and democrats. Everyone has their own opinion as to why they think their political parties will offer the best leadership. Those in support of the republicans will hate the democrats, and the democrats will equally hate the republicans. In social media, people feel freer and even raise criticism and abuse towards each other. The law suggests that no provider or used will be liable as the publisher of the information posted online. Thus, section 230 will allow people to openly raise their grievances and anger towards each other without the fear of being held responsible. There is no privacy consideration in the law, and that makes it unreliable. People have been misinterpreting the real and intended meaning of the act, which has resulted in many controversies. There is a lack of a clear description of who is to be held responsible as not one is willing to take the blame.
Suzor Nicholas's book Lawless: The Secret Rules that govern our digital lives suggests that section 230 law has effectively protected businesses against losses but has failed to protect the various social media platforms' users. The platforms, search engines, and many other technology companies can limit and regulate what we see and read online. Various huge companies, such as Facebook, can regulate our behaviors without accountability, resulting in fights between the government and other political groups. Thus, in general, there are limitations to the power that protects human rights in a decentralized form of government (Suzor, 2019). Our personal decisions and humans are not informed or rational as they are under the influence of what we rad online. An entity needs to consider the legality of their steps towards providing information that will impact the decisions that others will make. The same applies to the various companies owning the social media platforms that censor and limit the number of information people can view and read political matters. There is a need for reforms to the act to hold everyone responsible for what they post online.
The law's initial and intended purpose is to restrict the free speech that people had over the internet. The law is again to the various online intermediaries who either host or republish speech. They are under protection against various laws that would otherwise hold them responsible for what other people say on the online platforms. Those who are protected by the law equally include internet service providers. However, there are exceptions to any criminal or intellectual property violation. Boggers are protected as they are intermediaries when they are hosting comments on their blogs. The bloggers will not be accountable for what the followers of readers post. The focus of the act is to ensure everyone takes charge of what they read and post online. It is possible to influence what other people believe, but it is within their responsibility to decide what to believe and what not to believe. Harvard Law Review (2018) agrees that section 230 is an intermediary liability that encourages websites to use content without fear of defamation liability. In that case, the source encourages the need to question who benefits the most from the law and the gap to protect users from exploitation and ensure efficient online policing.
Analysis/ Discussion
Section 230 of the communication decency is a primary internet law which is misunderstood by many internet users. The focus of the law is to provide protection to interactive computer services form being held responsible for what the users post ( Harvard Law Review, 2018) . However, in an election situation there has been misuse and violation of the law and the interactive computer services providers have been regulating what people see and read online. At the moment, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are some of the social media platforms that are key information providers to the Americans. The various social media platforms have one key difference from the old media sources. The current platforms gain their popularity from the content that the users create and not form the site itself. It is possible to tweet about a certain political opinion and other will respond in the same thread without and engagement from twitter. The main role of twitter will be to distribute the conversation. The strategy is good for all the stakeholders. The social media platform will get free content and attract more users and the users get the tools that enhances their communication. However, the strategy is equally risky to the platforms and users at the same time and measure.
If an individual post a tweet that criticizes a politician, the politician might decide to sue the platform that carries the message. Thus, the platform is left with only the option of taking down the information from the platform and evade the threat of liability. Also, they can control who will see the message and who will not. As a way of reducing the threat that the platforms are facing, they are likely to squash the message for the fear of a lawsuit. Recently, section 230 has been under political pressure form both members of the executive and the congress. Majority if people are for the idea of having more limitations on various internet content such as non-consensual pornography, claims for anti-vaccination and the various political advocacy. There are proposals for section 230 that are asking companies to make it challenging if not impossible for the contested ideas such as between the truth and being neutral. Political truth varies depending on the political side that a person supports. There are social media first such a Twitter that responds to criticism through banning the political advisory category. People are free from any political advertisements especially during the election period.
The action of banning ads in the site might be a good strategy but may be disadvantageous to the third-party candidates. The third-party candidates lack the ability to command the attention of standard media outlets. In the United States the first amendment is a prohibition of the government form restricting speech. The restriction includes several other force tech companies that are responsible for controlling their content (“ US Section 230 moves loom over social media worldwide,” 2020) . Private companies are at liberty to create rules that restrict speech. The ability is the reason why Facebook and Twitter have been able to ban hate speech from their platforms despite the facts that it is considered legal in the first amendment. The issue is different from the discussion on whether or not platforms should be liable for the information that their users post online. Various technological companies have taken it within their responsibility to include more regulations. The approaches that most of the companies take are base on the assumption that the platform is global and is subjected to several different laws. It is very hard for companies to hire enough individuals to go through all the contents before they are posted online for others to see and read. Equally, the various companies will always be constantly changing for competition purposes.
For instance, Facebook suggests that the government should hold the tech platforms responsible for some of the key metrics. Some of the metrics include violation of posts that are below a certain number of views. There is need to have a median response time for the removal of the posts. However, any of the strategies can result in the creation of pervasive incentives. For example, is a platform is required to remove a certain post within the next 24 hours after posting they will stop focusing on older posts and concentrate more on posts that are still within the 24 hours window period. Section 230 may still be a central part in the fourth coming general elections campaign. However, there is need for modifications that will make the platforms not be a part on any of the campaigns results. Users should just use the platforms like any other and the serve providers should not limit people form viewing information form one party and avail information from another party. The most crucial approach is to ensure there is equality in the distribution of information from both political parties without taking sides. Taking sides will facilitate violence which is what is being avoided at the end of the elections period.
The most amazing aspect of the human language is its capacity and self-reference. Humans have the capability to consider if the information that ae posting online is safe and the manner in which it will affect the decisions of others. Social media is accepting the responsibility of the information they post online for other to read. They are behaving in a restraint manner like the publishers and not the platforms ( Oxford Analytica, n.p ). Thus, section 230 has provided Facebook and Twitter with the opportunity to be viewed as platforms and not publishers. In the absence of section 230, it would not be possible for the various social medial platforms to grow and expand in the manner they have since the implementation of the act. There is immunity to liability and everyone has a role to play in the transfer of information. People need to sit down and reflect on what impact the information would have on them before posting it online. The aim is to have a consensus between two political parties having a discussion in an online platform. It is good to consider the opinion of other as they might be right with their opinions and reduce online violence which might escalate be physical.
Conclusion
Section 230 suggests that the interactive computer cannot be treated as a third-party content creator or speaker. The main aim is to protect the various tech companies such as Facebook and Twitter from the information that some of the user's post. Recently, there have been controversies on the law as some service providers have been seen regulating the information on the platforms. They decided what information for a given political party people will see and read and what information they will not. The action has raised a heated debate on social media's role in the accountability that people post online. Some believe that service providers should take full responsibility for what people post to control the information. The strategy has led to some of the companies taking actions like banning hate speech on their platform. Also, there has been the removal of campaign ads during the election years to reduce violence and violation of section 230 law. The argument presented is that everyone should be accountable for what they post. It is easy to control what people will read online, but it is not possible to regulate what they will believe.
References
"US Section 230 moves loom over social media worldwide." (2020). Emerald Expert Briefings , 2020.
Chakrabarti, S. (2018). “Hard Questions: What Effect Does Social Media Have on Democracy?” Facebook Newsroom. Accessed April 19, 2019. https://newsroom.fb.com/ news/2018/01/effect-social-media-democracy/.
Cramer, W. (2020). "From Liability to Accountability: The Ethics of Citing Section 230 to Avoid the Obligations of Running a Social Media Platform." Journal of Information Policy 10: 123-150.
Gardner, K. (2019). “Social Media: Where Voices of Hate Find a Place to Preach.” White Paper, The Center for Public Integrity, August 30, 2018. https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/social-media-where-voices-of-hate-find-a-place-to-preach/.
Harvard Law Review. (2018). Section 230 as First Amendment Rule. 131. 2027
Hwang, T. (2020). "Dealing with Disinformation: Evaluating the Case for Amendment of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act." Social Media and Democracy , pp. 252-285.
Oxford Analytica. US Section 230 moves loom over social media worldwide. Emerald Expert Briefings , (oxan-es).
Rogers, A, et al. (2019). "Calls to Action on Social Media: Detection, Social Impact, and Censorship Potential." Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Internet Freedom: Censorship, Disinformation, and Propaganda .
Suzor N. (2019). Lawless: The Secret Rules That Govern Our Digital Lives . New York: Cambridge University.
Vardi, M. Y. (2018). Self-reference and section 230. Communications of the ACM , 61 (11), 7-7.
