If you’ve been on the internet for more than a week, you’ve probably heard people talk about “free speech online,” “platform accountability,” or “who’s responsible for what gets posted.” Somewhere in that conversation, the term Section 230 usually pops up.
But for most people, Section 230 sounds like something buried deep in a law textbook, not something that affects your everyday scrolling, posting, or meme-sharing habits.
The truth?
Section 230 is one of the biggest reasons the internet looks and works the way it does today.
And yes, you should care about it.
What is Section 230?
The 1996 rule is known as Section 230. It helps social media apps and websites (like Facebook, YouTube, or X) avoid being held accountable for what other people post.
It states that if someone posts something hurtful, false, or cruel online, they, not the website, may face consequences.
For instance, you can take action against someone who posts a falsehood about you on Facebook, but you cannot hold Facebook accountable.
Websites are secure despite:
- The post is kept there.
- The post is removed.
As long as they don’t alter the post’s content.
Additionally, Section 230 protects websites from other issues, such as:
- Concerns about privacy
- Scams or fake news
- People who face dangerous challenges, excerpts from videos
However, Section 230 isn’t always effective:
- If someone distributes songs or ideas that have been stolen (copyright issues)
- If someone shares something that violates serious criminal laws (such as identity theft or kidnapping).
- A 2018 law states that websites that assist in sex trafficking or child abuse may be held accountable.
For websites, Section 230 acts as a sort of shield, but it has some weaknesses when it comes to very serious crimes. For websites, Section 230 acts as a sort of shield, but it has some weaknesses when it comes to very serious crimes.
What Impact Does Section 230 Have on Internet Users?
According to Section 230, you can only take action against the individual who posted the offensive content, not the website or app where you saw it.
For Example:
- You can only hold the seller accountable if they sell a phony item on eBay.
- You can only hold the individual who sold the phony concert ticket accountable, not the ticket website.
- Only the creator of the fraudulent website is held accountable if Google displays a dubious or fraudulent website in search results.
- You can only hold the individual who created the phony profile accountable, not the dating app itself, if it has one.
Apps and websites are free to establish their own guidelines for eliminating offensive content.
- If a court orders it, some will remove it.
- However, unless it violates copyright laws, they usually won’t face any consequences if they don’t remove it.
Therefore, Section 230 mainly protects the website rather than the poster.
What Was The Need for Section 230?
People didn’t know how to manage all the posts, messages, and websites that people were creating back when the internet was brand-new.
There were two significant court cases in the early 1990s:
- A website was not penalized for offensive posts if it did not review or modify user-generated content.
- A website may face consequences if it attempts, but fails, to filter or delete offensive content (such as deceptive or cruel posts).
One business, Prodigy, eliminated offensive language from posts. However, after someone posted false information about a money company there, Prodigy was sued and lost because they had attempted to remove some of the posts but failed.
When lawmakers saw this, they reasoned that if we penalize websites for attempting to remove harmful content, they would give up. Then, there will be a lot of dangerous content on the internet.
Thus, Section 230 was created in 1996.
It stated:
- What people post on websites is not their fault.
- They can attempt to eliminate offensive material without worrying about facing consequences if they overlook anything.
This rule made it easier for people to share ideas online and for websites to exist without constantly facing lawsuits.
The Communications Decency Act was a larger law that included Section 230. The Supreme Court later struck down the majority of that law because it restricted free speech too much. However, Section 230 remained in place and continues to.
Has a ruling regarding Section 230 been given by the Supreme Court?
A family sought to sue YouTube in 2023.
They claimed that YouTube did not take down terrorist-produced videos that contributed to the attack in which one of their family members perished.
The family stated:
- YouTube shouldn’t be protected by Section 230.
- YouTube became more of a publisher than a website thanks to its “recommendation” system.
After hearing the case, the Supreme Court made the following decision:
- YouTube was not helping terrorists.
- It wasn’t illegal because YouTube’s system displays videos in the same way for everyone.
- It is not necessary for websites to express disapproval of poor or inappropriate videos.
The Supreme Court also declined to consider a second case involving Section 230 in 2024, this one involving Snapchat.
What Happens If Section 230 Doesn’t Exist?
People can communicate online without the website being penalized for what people say, thanks to Section 230.
Websites may be reluctant to allow us to post or share content if it disappears.
There are two possible outcomes:
- Websites become extremely rigid.
- A new law regarding sex trafficking in 2018 increased the vigilance of websites.
- Craigslist eliminated its “personals” section entirely because it didn’t want to take any chances, even though the majority of users weren’t abusing it.
- Sites like Facebook, YouTube, or X may remove a large number of posts in order to avoid lawsuits if Section 230 is repealed.
- Websites cease all moderation.
- Some may simply give up and allow anything to be posted.
- That might make them rife with offensive or harmful content, similar to 8chan, a website that frequently features extreme and horrible posts.
Changes to Section 230 could impact online speech globally, not just in the United States.
Common Misconceptions Regarding Section 230
People debate what Section 230 actually accomplishes and how websites regulate posts.
While some want fewer regulations to allow more content to remain online, others want more regulations to eliminate harmful content.
- The first misconception:
Some people believe Section 230 protects everything they dislike about the internet, such as hate speech, false information, and political opinions they don’t share.
However, the First Amendment, which deals with free speech, rather than Section 230, actually protects the majority of that.
- Second Misunderstanding:
According to some, businesses don’t get rid of enough offensive material. However, the First Amendment permits businesses to continue posting unless it falls under a specific category of speech that is prohibited by law.
- Third Misunderstanding:
According to some, Section 230 gives websites excessive control over what they display.
Again, though, the First Amendment is largely in play here, allowing businesses to decide what posts or viewpoints to display or conceal.
Therefore, free speech laws are the primary cause of the majority of online content’s uptick or downtick, not Section 230.
Conclusion
Section 230 is the rule that keeps the internet running the way we know it. It protects platforms because without it, the Internet would be difficult and not as easy to use.
That means the website doesn’t have to review every single thing that is posted. And without it, the internet would be slow and restricted, due to which many people would not be able to show their talents. Section 230 is a part of why that’s possible.
