Critics have responded to proposals to revise or repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the statute that shields online platforms from liability for content posted by their users.
Section 230 drew renewed attention after then-President Trump argued the law was being used to silence certain voices when some of his tweets were labeled for misinformation. The provision itself is short—just 26 words—and was crafted to protect online speech:
“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.”
Although the president’s posts remained publicly accessible, he sought authority to sue platforms. Many observers view that move as an effort to pressure social networks into removing viewpoints that conflict with his, by making platforms face legal and political risk for hosting such content.
The law’s authors—former SEC chairman Chris Cox and Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden—have noted that Section 230 was intended to keep government from deciding what content may appear on internet platforms.
A further threat to net neutrality
Net neutrality holds that internet service providers should treat all lawful online traffic and content equally. The principle became a major public issue after the net neutrality rules enacted during the Obama administration were rolled back in 2017–2018.
Research from institutions including the University of Massachusetts and Northeastern University highlighted how, with fewer regulatory constraints, some companies have experimented with differential treatment of traffic and data speeds, potentially disadvantaging consumers.
Proposed laws such as the Earn It Act have raised additional concerns about political control over online content. Cox warned that measures like these risk creating a “speech police” that decides which content is permitted, rather than preserving an open space for users to express themselves.
Public filings to the FCC on related proposals show widespread misunderstanding of Section 230—many commenters treat it as a threat to free speech rather than a protection for it. One filer claimed publishers posing as platforms have stifled free speech, while another demanded political speech be excluded from Section 230’s protections, accusing content providers of biased censorship.
Akin to China’s strict web censorship
The debate intensified after the president objected to fact-check labels on his posts and issued an executive order seeking to prompt a revision of the law. Concerns about bias in fact-checking are understandable: if fact-checking is applied unevenly across the political spectrum, it can skew public perceptions. Building public trust requires fact-checking systems that are transparent, impartial, and independent where they are implemented.
However, moving toward a framework where non-government-approved viewpoints are broadly suppressed—or where platforms are forced to act as government-directed arbiters of acceptable speech—raises serious free speech concerns and resembles more restrictive models of internet control.
Calls to change or eliminate Section 230 have not come only from conservative figures. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden also expressed interest in repealing the law, prompting critics like Wyden to ask what alternatives proponents would put in place if Section 230 were discarded.
The President’s speech police
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel warned against turning regulatory bodies into instruments of political speech control, urging the agency not to become the president’s “speech police” and to respect constitutional protections when evaluating petitions and proposals.
Large infrastructure companies that support internet traffic have also expressed concern about regulatory changes. For example, Akamai—one of the world’s largest content delivery networks—filed comments pointing out that as an infrastructure provider it does not create, publish, monitor, or moderate content; its role is content-agnostic, focused on optimizing and distributing content already available online.
“As an infrastructure provider, Akamai does not monitor, moderate, remove, publish, or create content. Rather, its core business is deliberately content-agnostic, simply optimizing and accelerating content otherwise available on the internet.
Akamai agrees with initial statements by others that the Commission lacks legal authority to adopt NTIA’s proposed rules. It also believes that NTIA’s proposed rules are inconsistent with fundamental First Amendment principles.”
Akamai manages a substantial share of global web traffic at any given time and helps protect users from large-scale attack traffic originating abroad. Expecting networks and intermediaries—from CDNs to social platforms—to censor all user-shared content according to government directives would pose a significant risk to both free expression and net neutrality.
Section 230 has often been called “the twenty-six words that created the internet.” As lawmakers and regulators consider reforms, preserving the balance between protecting free expression, fostering innovation, and addressing harmful abuse and misinformation remains a complex challenge. Thoughtful solutions should avoid replacing platform moderation with government-driven censorship or imposing rules that undermine the open nature of the internet.
(Photo by Maarten van den Heuvel on Unsplash)
Interested in hearing industry leaders discuss topics like this? Attend co-located events such as 5G Expo, IoT Tech Expo, Blockchain Expo, AI & Big Data Expo, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo World Series, which hold upcoming conferences in locations including Silicon Valley, London, and Amsterdam.