The largest social media operators in the U.S. — X, Meta and TikTok — are either directly intertwined with Donald Trump’s administration or kissing the presidential ring.
X owner Elon Musk is taking a wrecking ball to the federal government at Trump’s behest. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s shameless MAGA makeover is well-documented. And thanks to the Biden administration’s ill-advised TikTok ban, that platform’s fate rests in Trump’s hands. Trump even has his own social media venture, Truth Social.
In light of that, you’d think Trump’s opposition would support alternative platforms. Take Bluesky and Mastodon. Both grew after Musk’s takeover of X. Democrats wouldn’t make it so expensive to run a social media platform that only those loyal to Trump can stay in business. Right?
Wrong. Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin wants to sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects websites and apps from liability for posts created by users. Without it, the internet as we know it couldn’t function — the legal risks of interactivity would be too great.
Politicians often frame Section 230 as a gift to big tech. That’s incorrect. Big tech companies are the only ones that could afford to survive without it. Upstart competitors couldn’t. Independent news outlets that foster dialog certainly couldn’t. Illinois political blog CapitolFax.com says Durbin’s plan would put it out of business.
Durbin values free speech. He sponsored the PRESS Act to allow journalists to speak truth to power without government interference. He helped lead efforts to reform domestic surveillance powers that have been abused against journalists and dissidents. His intentions in opposing Section 230 are noble — fighting child sexual abuse material, fentanyl, cyberbullying and addictive algorithms, for example.
But the road to censorship is paved with good intentions, and there’s a history of short-sighted efforts to “improve” the internet. One example: Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who also opposes Section 230, once proposed tasking the head of the Department of Health and Human Services with regulating public health misinformation. If she’d succeeded, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would be our health care censor-in-chief.
Bombarded with baseless complaints
Congress passed Section 230 in 1996 because there was no way for online platforms to monitor millions of posts for content they could be sued over. There still isn’t. Sure, platforms can now rely on technologies like artificial intelligence. But we’ve repeatedly seen that approach lead to removal of legitimate content, including important journalism.
Technological solutions are also sure to miss tons of objectionable content, leading to crippling lawsuits the Meta’s of the world can afford but the Bluesky’s cannot. As Techdirt’s Mike Masnick points out, that’s why Zuckerberg himself wants to weaken Section 230. What, did you think he cares about combating harmful algorithms? He practically invented them.
Abuses of copyright law — which Section 230 doesn’t cover — offers a preview of what its repeal would mean for online speech. The specter of copyright liability gives the powerful a dangerous weapon to wield against their critics.
“Reputation management” firms send thousands of baseless copyright notices to censor news. Last year, tech executive Maury Blackman filed baseless copyright demands against independent journalist Jack Poulson to hide Blackman’s domestic violence arrest. In 2023, actor David Choe abused copyright law to remove clips where he seemingly admitted to rape.
These efforts are often successful because website operators err on the side of removal rather than devoting rather than devoting resources to legal research. They’re even more ill-equipped to assess the anti-speech grievances they’d be bombarded with absent Section 230.
Musk, Trump and other thin-skinned public figures would file serial complaints against speech they don’t like, particularly by journalists, claiming it defames them, misleads consumers, threatens their safety or whatever nonsense legal theory they next dream up.
Trump himself has called for a repeal of Section 230, and his censorial Federal Communications Commission Chair, Brendan Carr, added language to Project 2025 calling to scale it back.
As was the case before Section 230, post-repeal platforms might be safer taking a completely hands-off approach to content moderation than risking negligence lawsuits for trying, but inevitably failing, to police speech.
Demanding platforms investigate users can also undermine encryption tools used to communicate confidentiality by investigative reporters, activists and others who authoritarians target and whose backs Democrats should have. That’s the fatal flaw in at least some versions of another well-intended internet bill Durbin supports, the STOP CSAM (child sex abuse material) Act.
Durbin’s disdain for censorship led him to support the PRESS Act. With a president eager to silence journalists, now’s not the time to risk silencing free speech. A two-year sunset period offers cold comfort absent a plan to mitigate the damage during that window. Even if Durbin had one, there’s no reason to believe our dysfunctional Congress can pass it.
Every parent, myself included, worries about social media. But repealing Section 230 will only empower the worst offenders and bankrupt their competition. Using a cudgel where a scalpel is needed is Trump’s game. Democrats can do better.
Seth Stern is the director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation and a First Amendment lawyer.
The views and opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Chicago Sun-Times or any of its affiliates.
The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and op-eds. See our guidelines.
Get Opinions content delivered to your inbox.