The New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop was throttled by the social platform, which received widespread bipartisan criticism. Section 230 could change the internet forever if repealed.
On Friday, Matt Taibbi, who writes the Substack newsletter "TK News," posted a thread of his own on the subject of the social platform's moderation system. Taibbi told his readers on Substack that he had to agree to certain conditions in order to publish the files.
Taibbi declined to speak to Insider.
The New York Post's story about Hunter Biden's laptop was the focus of Taibbi's thread. The initial reports about the laptop were met with skepticism by social media platforms and warnings from law enforcement about the spread of misinformation through social apps.
They did not respond to Insider's requests for comment.
In an August interview with Joe Rogan, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg confirmed that his platforms suppressed reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop before the 2020 election, saying it "fits the pattern" of misinformation Facebook had been advised to look out for. Some reports about the contents of the laptop have not been verified.
According to the documents published by Taibbi, internal discussions about the laptop story and the ultimate decision to slow its reach across the platform and label it using the platform's "hacked materials" policy took place. It was unclear at the time if the material on the laptop had been obtained legally, and critics were quick to question why the material had been throttled.
The story now has become more about censoring than it was when it was first reported. Many sections of section 230 would have been a mistake if it weren't for it.
The most important law protecting internet speech is Section 230. The phrase " that created the internet" limits legal liability for tech platforms that host user-generated content because they can't be held responsible for illegal content posted by their users.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service will be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Tech companies see a potential reversal as a threat to free speech that would force small web hosts to close their websites or risk legal liability for what their users post.
Questions about the congressman's position on Section 230 were not answered by representatives for Khanna.
The congressman said in a statement that he believed the Constitution and First Amendment weresacred. As the congressman who represents Silicon Valley, I raised my concerns about the actions of the social network. Our democracy can only thrive if we are willing to engage with people we disagree with.
The site's former trust and safety chief said it was a mistake to criticize the move. 9 Republicans and 3 Democrats disapprove of the decision, and bipartisan calls for the reform or reversal of Section 230 have increased since the Hunter Biden laptop story.
"I'm more determined than ever to strip Section 230 protections from Big Tech that let them be immune from lawsuits," Sen. Lindsay Graham said in January 2021. The only companies in America that have immunity from being sued for their actions are Big Tech.
Section 230 was a staple of Donald Trump's presidency, and he made it a point to complain about what he called "selective censorship" on social media. The $740 billion defense bill was vetoed by Trump because it didn't repeal Section 230.
Section 230 has been criticized by both Republicans and Democrats due to claims of tech platforms censoring conservative viewpoints.
"I'm calling on Congress to get rid of special immunity for social media companies and impose stronger transparency requirements on all of them," Biden said earlier this year.
If Section 230 is repealed, free speech advocates worry that the digital landscape would change dramatically, with website hosts being held liable for the content posted to their sites, which would likely eliminate legal risk by drastically limiting what they allow users to post or shut down.
"Repealing Section 230 is a drastic step that would upend the internet, punishing successful firms and internet users for the behavior of an antisocial minority," read an essay by Will Duffield. Legal liability on platforms won't make them more thoughtful or smart. Some will close and others will exclude all but the most offensive words.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
