With Democrats and Republicans alike eager to flex government power over private social media companies, one option remains most appealing to limited government conservatives. Section 230 of the the Communications Decency Act protects "providers" of "an interactive user service" from legal liability over what a "user" chooses to publish. As social media companies grow increasingly illiberal in their crackdowns of dissenting voices, conservatives have increasingly entertained the idea of tightening the standards for which platforms qualify for Section 230 protection.

In theory, this is an excellent idea on all fronts. It limits the application of an existing law rather creating a new one or worse, regulating or breaking up private companies, and it could mandate that social media platforms actually act like platforms instead of publishers who exercise a robust amount of discrimination as to what sort of content they will host.

But such a rewriting of the law would have to be done carefully, lest it risk shutting down free speech on the Internet entirely.

Current law doesn't differentiate between a social media platform acting like a publisher and engaging in viewpoint discrimination. If Facebook shadow-bans conservatives and elevates left-wing voices, it's still considered a platform so long as Facebook itself isn't posting content. Section 230 could be amended to create more rules that platforms must follow to maintain its protection, but such an amendment would be risky.

A modest amendment could require social media companies to follow their own terms of service. But terms of service are often dense and easy to frequently update, so this wouldn't likely solve the problem, but it would force social media companies to be honest about their criteria for bans and suspensions.

Eliminating Section 230 altogether would render social media companies liable for every item posted by users, and thus lead to a chilling effect where there would be effectively no platforms willing to host the work of random individuals, leaving only employed journalists with the ability to speak out online.

The most palatable option would be a moderate modification to Section 230. For example, it could mandate that platforms remain viewpoint-neutral and only ban non- Brandenburg protected speech, targeted harassment, and a number of obvious abusive behaviors, such as the promotion of self-harm or child abuse. But even then, there could be unintended consequences in court. So you can imagine that any changes to Section 230 will surely become the center of one of the most politically charged battles of a generation.

The illiberal Left wants to shut you up.



Demonetizing 👏 doesn't 👏 work. 👏



Abusers use it as proof they're being "discriminated" against. Then they make millions off of selling merch, doing speaking gigs, and getting their followers to support them on Patreon.



The ad revenue isn't the problem. It's the platform. — Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) June 5, 2019



They don't want to shame you. They don't want to demonetize you. They want to erase your voice from public discourse.

Conservatives should avoid handing a weapon to the enemies of free speech. Allowing Elizabeth Warren to start trust-busting private companies or President AOC to regulate "hate speech" online is just the first step toward left-wing fascism. Conservatives need to focus on Section 230 as they proceed to rein in social media abuses, and avoid wielding the blunt force of government power.