Rep. Doyle joins debate over online free speech
WASHINGTON — They’ve been called the 26 words that created the internet: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
That consequential statute, passed 23 years ago, allowed online platforms to flourish by providing broad legal immunity to publishers of user-generated content, while also encouraging those publishers to moderate discussions and develop systems to flag inappropriate or illegal activity.
Today, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is at the center of bipartisan scrutiny on Capitol Hill amid the proliferation of hate speech, fake news and illegal activity that companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter have failed to remove, regulate or tamp down.
The same legal shield granted to the largest platforms also is enjoyed by online forums dedicated to facilitating illegal activity and message boards populated by racist manifestos that precede or encourage real-life violence.
On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, led a House panel hearing on those thorny
questions, citing in his opening remarks the Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, carried out by a suspect who found encouragement for his threats against Jews in an online community.
Questioning six technology and cybercrime experts, including the co-founder of Reddit and a Google executive, Mr. Doyle’s panel wanted to explore what, if anything, should be done about the law — without jeopardizing the future of the internet or infringing on free speech rights.
“I think we have all heard the problems,” Mr. Doyle said. “It’s time we get some solutions.”
“What is the solution between not eliminating [Section] 230 because of the effects that would have on the whole internet and making sure we do a better job of policing?” he said. “You need to have an industry getting together and discussing better ways to do this.”
Mr. Doyle, as chair of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee tasked with protecting consumers in the communications and technology industries, has outsized influence to deliberate on such matters.
While Mr. Doyle’s recent legislation — such as a crackdown on robo-calls and redrawing outdated federal broadband maps — may seem like political no-brainers, he is wading into complicated legal issues that face fierce opposition from Silicon Valley.
“This model relies on Section 230,” Steve Huffman, cofounder and CEO of Reddit, said of his company. “I’m here because even small changes to the law will have outsized consequences for our business, our communities and what little competition remains in our industry.”
The law was passed in 1996 to clarify legal uncertainty after a pair of conflicting rulings in online defamation cases.
Those cases effectively discouraged companies from moderating userposted content at all after one platform was found liable for a defamatory post because it tried to referee its website but missed the harmful post. Section 230 was intended to be a shield for companies to create their own guidelines and moderate how they see fit.
Mr. Doyle and other lawmakers said they had no appetite to repeal Section 230. But they wondered how to strengthen incentives for online platforms to better selfregulate.
Those testifying tended to agree: While none of the panelists supported eliminating the law, they all agreed that internet platforms, as they have added users to reach a once-unfathomable scale, need to do a better job at quickly removing harmful content.
“We don’t repeal [Section] 230, but we make it a responsibility, not a right,” said Hany Farid, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “If a reasonable person can find this content, [I’m] sure Google with its resources can find it as well.”
“The terms of service of most of the major platforms are actually pretty good,” Mr. Farid added. “It’s just that they don’t really do much to enforce them.”
Katherine Oyama, Google’s global head of intellectual property policy, said the company is relying on a combination of algorithms and users themselves.
“We are constantly working to draw effective, appropriate lines,” Ms. Oyama said. “It means developing rules that we can enforce consistently. It means balancing respect for diverse viewpoints and giving a platform to marginalized voices, while developing thoughtful policies to tackle egregious content that violates our rules.”
Google, which owns YouTube, has developed machine-learning tools to remove videos and comments at scale. Of 9 million videos YouTube removed between April and June 2019, she said, 87% of these were first flagged by machines. Of those detected by machines, 81% were never viewed.
Mr. Huffman said Reddit, which he co-founded in his dorm room in 2005, showed an effective way for online communities to police themselves. Reddit’s system of allowing users to “upvote” and “downvote” content is a way to push down inappropriate posts and question fake content, he said.
Corynne McSherry, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, urged lawmakers to proceed with caution, as any changes to the law would erode the foundation that has allowed marginalized voices to find a community.
“Section 230 has ushered in a new era of community and connection on the internet,” Ms. McSherry said. “Consider that some of the most vital modern activist movements — #MeToo, #WomensMarch, #BlackLivesMatter — are universally identified by hashtags.”
It is unclear from Wednesday’s hearing what modifications Congress might consider. Mr. Doyle did not endorse any specifics.
Gretchen Peters, executive director of the Alliance to Counter Crime Online, called on Congress to include tougher accountability for tech firms when they allow illegal activity to take place. Silicon Valley’s “move fast break things” attitude deliberately turned a blind eye to crime in favor of adding users at any costs, she argued.
“Try and imagine another industry that has ever enjoyed such an incredible subsidy from Congress: total immunity no matter what harm their product brings to consumers,” Ms. Peters said.
“They were given this incredible freedom,” she said. “And they have no one to blame but themselves for squandering it.”