← Question Everything
Question Everything
The Funky Court Ruling That Led to the Modern Internet
00:39:20
As lawmakers on Capitol Hill call for the repeal of Section 230, we return to the moment it was spawned.
Loading summary
Transcript96 lines
- [00:01]
A
I've got news. I know a bunch of you have been tracking this, but the other day it happened. Section 230, the law that makes it so websites and online platforms aren't liable for most of what other people post on them. A law I've been arguing here that we should change. It finally got some airtime in Congress and lawmakers, they really laid into it. I strongly believe that Section 230 has.
- [00:25]
B
Long outlived its use and it is.
- [00:28]
A
Now a real vessel for evil that needs to come to an end. That's Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat. He and other senators from both parties declared at a hearing about children's online safety last week that they want to move a bill forward to repeal Section 230. They even put a timeline on it. They want to bring it forward in time for the 30th anniversary of Section 230's passage, which is this coming February. We'll keep tracking developments. Of course. It's good timing because today on the show we look at that 30 year history of section 230 to see how we got here. I've been trying to put myself back in the headspace of the early 90s to the early days of the Internet because if you're a regular listener here, you'll know I'm trying to figure out how to, how we ended up here in a country where so many people don't trust each other anymore, where we can't agree on what's real or what's fake. The Internet didn't create all these problems, but it's become a major catalyst for them. Lies travel faster than facts. Outrage gets rewarded by powerful algorithms that train us with hits of dopamine. Huge private corporations decide which voices get amplified and which ones get drowned out. Nearly half of young people say, say they wish social media had never been invented. So if you really want to understand why things feel so stuck and so out of control at once, it's helpful to go back to the beginning, to the moment when the rules were set. Check out this great clip I came across from the Today show from 1994, when the ability to get on the Internet from your home was brand spanking new. It's Katie Couric and Bryant Gumbel. Gumbel had just read his first email address on air. Oh, that's a little mark with the A and then the ring around it at. See, that's what I said. Katie said she thought it was about.
- [02:22]
C
Yeah.
- [02:22]
A
Oh, but I'd never heard it. I'd never heard it said I'd always seen the mark but never heard it said. And then it sounded stupid when I said it. Violence at NBC. Well, Allison should know when to take that out.
- [02:34]
C
Anyway, Internet is that massive computer network, the one that's becoming really big now.
- [02:42]
A
What do you mean that's big? How does one. What do you write to it, like mail? Allison, can you explain what Internet is? They have to get one of their producers to explain it to them. From offstage. It all seems so innocent, even quaint, through the lens of time. I mean, no one had any idea how the world was about to change. Twitter wasn't even a glint in Jack Dorsey's eye. Mark Zuckerberg and Sam Altman were probably playing with Legos. So was I. To be fair, this was two years before Congress passed a law that would quietly but definitively shape the Internet. Section 230 of the Communications Decency act, the law that made it so websites and platforms and apps generally are not liable for what other people post on them. This is the thing I've been banging the drum on here on the show. Revamping section 230 so we can hold Internet companies accountable for bad behavior. But there's a conflict I'm in the middle of. On the one hand, section 230 makes it really hard to hold powerful tech companies accountable, even when they amplify lies or deep fake pornography or other content that really hurts people, even if it leads to violence. But on the other hand, the law also helped create a wide open Internet full of vigorous speech and debate, where people can think freely, argue loudly, criticize what they don't agree with, where important reporting, the MeToo movement, can really make a mark. I want to fix the problems, but I don't want an Internet where people are being censored left and right. And a lot of people say this is why we shouldn't touch section 230. It's too risky. But I've held out hope that there's got to be a way to reform section 230 that helps some of the big problems without blowing up free speech on the Internet. And the only way I know how to figure that out is, is by nerding out on the history of how the law came about in the first place. That's one of the many section 230 rabbit holes I've been going down. And I'm going to bring you down there with me today. What were the lawmakers who passed Section 230 trying to solve? How did they go about it? Knowing that can help you figure out how you feel about Section 230, whether we should change it, and if so, how. This is question. Everything from KCRW emplacement theory. I'm Brian Reed. It turns out, like many free speech fights in America, the spawning of Section 230 comes down to sex. Along with a funky legal ruling in Long island that involved a shady investment firm and a shady judge. Stick around. The page turner of my summer. I'm not being cute. It really was was a book about section 230. The book about section 230, there's only one that tells the whole story of the law. It's by a guy named Jeff Kossif, a former journalist and a lawyer who's represented tech companies, websites, and news outlets. Jeff took it upon himself a few years back to methodically research this law that's been so important to our modern age and then weave the story for all of us lay folk in a really compelling way. The book's called the 26 Words that Created the Internet. And I found it fascinating because reading it, I felt like section 230, this invisible force that shapes our lives. The way we date and get news and keep in touch with our families and gossip and sell our old furniture and track 911 calls in our neighborhoods and hunt for an apartment or for a job or for sex. I felt like Jeff was filling it in with colored dye, allowing me to see it clearly for the first time. So I wanted to invite him on to tell that story to you. I think I saw somewhere that you have this party trick where you can say the 26 words of section 230 from memory. Is that right?
- [06:29]
B
No one really asks at parties. I think someone just said that when they were interviewing me.
- [06:33]
A
Can you do it?
- [06:35]
B
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.
- [06:44]
A
Did you count the 26 words? Okay, well, what's important is to hang on to this concept. Computer service providers, apps, websites, social media companies, they can't be treated as publishers of the info that other people post on them. So just keep that in mind. Jeff's a big deal in the section 230 world, by the way, and it is a little niche world. Here he is testifying in Congress about the law.
- [07:10]
B
My goal is to help expand the public understanding of section 230. As section 230 is responsible more than any other law for the open Internet that Americans know love and hate, he.
- [07:22]
A
Is the guy to talk to about section 230 the man people turn to when they want to learn about this statute. What I learned from Jeff and his book is that section 230 arose in large part as a result of this one court case in 1995. It was a pretty small case in retrospect. It could have been a blip in history. But because of a perfect storm of things that were going on in Congress, in this new industry of the Internet and in the courts, it ended up having a huge impact on the Internet we have today and by extension on all of us. Jeff explains this little case in 1995. It was a defamation suit filed by a company called Stratton Oakmont.
- [08:03]
B
So Stratton Oakmont is an investment firm that was based in Long Island. It actually is the basis for the firm that was portrayed in the Wolf of Wall Street.
- [08:16]
A
Gentlemen, welcome to Stratton Oakmont.
- [08:21]
B
You schnooks will now be targeting the.
- [08:23]
A
Wealthiest 1% of Americans. Stratton Oakmont sued an Internet company called Prodigy. Maybe some of you over a certain age remember Prodigy. It was one of the first companies that let people dial into the Internet from their homes. Like aol, Prodigy had chat rooms and bulletin boards on different topics. It was created by IBM and Sears and they had that kind of friendly, mainstream consumer vibe. They were going for a kind of wholesome, family friendly, use the Internet to improve your day to day life kind of product. But on this one Prodigy bulletin board.
- [08:56]
B
About investing, someone started posting claims about the president of Stratton Oakmont claiming that he had engaged in fraudulent conduct, which.
- [09:08]
A
If you know the movie the Wolf of Wall street guys were ultimately put in prison for financial crimes. Stratton Oakmont's president said these claims of fraud on Prodigy's bulletin board were bullshit. That Prodigy was essentially publishing lies by providing the message board for this online.
- [09:24]
B
Chatter and that Prodigy should pay $200 million for defamation.
- [09:30]
A
$200 million in 1995.
- [09:32]
B
And so what Prodigy does is they ask the judge, and this is in a state court on Long island, they ask the judge, we want you to declare that we have the same protection that CompuServe has.
- [09:47]
A
Four years earlier in 1990, one of Prodigy's competitors, another dial up Internet provider called CompuServe had also been sued for defamation for a statement someone had shared in one of their forums. CompuServe had argued, we aren't a publisher, we're just a distributor. We're not like a newspaper, we're a newsstand. We can't be responsible for every little thing that our hundreds of thousands of users post at all hours of the day on our platform. That would be impossible. We didn't even know about the supposedly defamatory thing someone else said in our forum. CompuServe's argument was convincing to the court, which decided CompuServe should not be held liable for the allegedly defamatory statement published on their platform. The judge dismissed the case. So four years later, when Stratton Oakmont Wolf of Wall street is suing Prodigy for $200 million in their defamation lawsuit, Prodigy must be thinking, we're on pretty solid footing. They make the case to the judge that the suit shouldn't stand because they're just like CompuServe. They're not a publisher. They were more like a distributor. But Jeff says it didn't work.
- [10:57]
B
The judge comes back with a ruling that really surprises a lot of people, because the judge declines Prodigy's request and says, no, I am not going to treat you as the distributor. I'm going to treat you as the publisher. And he says, the reason that I'm going to do this is because unlike CompuServe, you exercise editorial control.
- [11:23]
A
The judge allows the case against Prodigy to move forward. And his reasoning came down to Prodigy's MO which was very different from CompuServe's CompuServe was a very hands off, anything goes type of place, all sorts of content. If you could get on the Internet, you could pretty much post what you wanted there. Prodigy, remember, was partly owned by Sears and was trying to appeal to families. Their ads featured kids and grandparents. The company didn't want obscene posts on their platform and they had moderators who took them down. Prodigy blocked users if they broke its rules. They curated their platform and made that part of their brand.
- [11:59]
B
Prodigy wants to be family friendly. I had friends who would do their homework using Prodigy because Prodigy had online encyclopedias and Prodigy was generally the service that parents felt more comfortable letting their kids used.
- [12:14]
A
Does anyone out there understand algebra?
- [12:17]
B
And Prodigy marketed that quite a bit.
- [12:19]
A
Is that new seafood chain as good as they say? Does that new bestseller on investing have any good tips?
- [12:23]
B
Is London a good place for a 10 year old?
- [12:26]
A
This is one of Prodigy's TV commercials.
- [12:28]
B
If you've got questions and are looking for real answers and opinions, how do we tell our child there's another child on the way? Then you should connect to Prodigy and share the personal experiences of all over a million and a half people. Prodigy, the network of active minds.
- [12:47]
A
Prodigy's wholesome brand, seemed to influence the Long island judge who said in his ruling basically, Prodigy, because you moderate your platform as a way to make it.
- [12:57]
B
Family friendly, because of that, you are going to be just as liable as the person who posted the content.
- [13:10]
A
Prodigy and Stratton Oakma ended up settling the case. But the judge's ruling on this one motion that Prodigy had filed, it got some attention because it sent a bit of a convoluted message. If you're an Internet company and you try to make your platform safer, cleaner, like Prodigy did, by setting standards, hiring moderators, keeping things more kid friendly, then we're going to punish you, essentially by making it easier for people to sue you. But if you don't go through the trouble and expense to do that stuff like CompuServe, you can walk away scot free. And here's why the ruling mattered so much, because it didn't land in a vacuum. It came down right in the middle of a moral panic about sex, kids, and the Internet that was engulfing lawmakers in Congress. Here's one particularly devout senator making his case on the Hill.
- [13:59]
D
Almighty God, Lord of all life, we praise you for the advancements in computer communications that we enjoy in our time.
- [14:10]
A
This all makes for a perfect storm, because at this very moment, when the judge ruled against Prodigy, Congress was locked in a fight over what the rules of the Internet should be, who should set them, and how those rules might affect free speech. And this is where we get to the sex. In his book, Jeff tells the story of Senator James Exxon, a conservative Democrat from Nebraska who was shocked by how much porn there was on the newfangled World Wide Web.
- [14:37]
D
Sadly, however, there are those who are littering this information superhighway with obscene, indecent, and destructive pornography virtually. But virtuous.
- [14:55]
A
Exxon and other senators were worried about kids being able to access this stuff. So Senator Exxon proposed a bill that would make it illegal. You could even go to jail to post indecent content. Many places online. It was called the Communications Decency Act. Jeff says Senator Exxon really threw himself behind the legislation.
- [15:14]
B
He had what was known as his Blue Book, which he carried around in the Senate and showed to other senators. It was basically a blue binder with printouts of pornography that he found on the Internet to basically show how concerned he was about this.
- [15:31]
A
Like, actual porn printed out in black and white in a blue book that a senator's, like, got tucked under his arm and he's walking around the chamber showing other lawmakers.
- [15:40]
D
Yes, I have here what I refer to as the Blue Book. When I have shown this to members on both sides of the aisle. There has been shock registered, obviously, on the face of my colleagues. I would hope that all of my colleagues would, if they're interested, come by my desk, take a look at this disgusting material.
- [16:12]
A
The Blue Book worked. Exxon's proposal passed in the Senate. In the House, though, Jeff says it.
- [16:17]
B
Faced a tougher road in the House, which is a bit younger than the Senate and a bit more tech friendly. You have members of both parties vehemently opposed to this legislation. Newt Gingrich, who is the new speaker of the House, he came out very quickly and said, this is clearly unconstitutional. We can't prohibit constitutionally protected speech.
- [16:43]
A
Porn for by and about adults over 18 might be lewd, but it's legal speech and protected by the First Amendment. It's not that representatives in the House weren't concerned about kids accessing sexual content online. They were. But the House lawmakers wanted to find a solution that didn't involve the government censoring people, which is where the Prodigy case comes back in. One of the best hopes for lawmakers who were trying to keep smut away from kids on the Internet while still allowing free speech would be for Internet companies to step in and moderate their platforms, not because the government was forcing them to necessarily, but because there was a market for it, like what Prodigy was doing. Lawmakers feared that the Prodigy ruling would make it a lot harder to encourage tech platforms to moderate themselves because the judge said since Prodigy was moderating its content, they were essentially approving it and could therefore be held liable for what people posted. It was a conundrum. Republican Congressman Chris Cox was one of the lawmakers leading the charge to figure this out in a speech years later, he remembers the first time he learned about the Prodigy ruling.
- [17:55]
E
Here I was one day on my regular weekly commute on a plane flight from California to Washington, reading an article in the Wall Street Journal about a court case in New York that had created a very dangerous legal precedent.
- [18:10]
A
Cox recalls reading the judge's reasoning in the case. Alarmed, Prodigy was wholesome, had banned harassment, bullying, obscene content, and that's what got it in trouble.
- [18:20]
E
Imagine if that were the law. We can all think of what the perverse incentives would be in the future. Online platforms would refuse to moderate even the most awful content for fear of that liability. It was a prescription for turning every online platform that's hosting user created content into a vulgar and dangerous place.
- [18:43]
A
It was a nightmare scenario for Cox and other representatives because, again, at the same time, you had old blue book. Senator James Exxon gaining traction for his rules about what people could post on the Internet.
- [18:54]
D
Now I'm not talking just about Playboy and Penthouse magazine magazine. I'm talking about the most hardcore, perverse types of pornography.
- [19:08]
A
So Chris Cox, the Republican from California, teamed up with one of his colleagues, Representative Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon. He's now a senator. Jeff has interviewed them both.
- [19:18]
B
They both came from districts that have a pretty large tech presence. So Cox is from Orange county and Wieden is from the Portland area and they were friends and they would have lunch together.
- [19:31]
A
Cox and Wyden wanted to prevent rulings like the Prodigy one. They wanted to encourage companies to be more civic minded, like Prodigy. Jeff also points out importantly that there were economic motives at play too.
- [19:43]
B
The other goal that Cox and Wyden had was to promote this new industry to prevent over regulation of the Internet. And they wanted to not subject these new companies to endless litigation for the vast amounts of user content that are posted.
- [20:06]
A
What were they worried would happen?
- [20:09]
B
Well, that the companies would get sued out of existence immediately.
- [20:12]
A
So they wrote out a proposal on a yellow legal pad. Cox scribbled the first version on one of his flights From California to D.C. he shared it with Wyden and they landed on two key ideas. First, the now famous 26 words that Jeff memorized.
- [20:28]
B
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. Basically what that means is if you're an app, a website, you're not treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another user by a third party.
- [20:50]
A
Again, you're not treated as the publisher or speaker. So you can't be held responsible for what other users post. Like the judge on Long island said Prodigy could be. That's the part of Section 230 that I'd say is most well known. But there's another part of the law, a lesser known one, that is longer than 26 words. So I don't think Jeff has memorized it. It says as a platform on the.
- [21:09]
B
Internet, you're also not civilly liable for any good faith efforts to block access to or restrict any content that you believe is lewd, lascivious or otherwise objectionable. So what they're saying is you're also going to get protection for good faith decisions that you make as to whether to moderate content to block access.
- [21:36]
A
This second provision is super important, so hang onto it as we keep talking about Section 230. It was meant to give companies on the Internet protection that Prodigy didn't have to allow companies to decide what they do or don't want on their platforms. If a website designed for children doesn't want pornography on it, that's their right. They can make that call. The explicit goal of the law is to encourage companies operating online to try and be good citizens to make judgments about what will make for a safer, healthier Internet, what will serve their users best, and to moderate content accordingly. It's actually labeled in the statute as a Good Samaritan protection, though notably there's no requirement for companies to be a Good Samaritan. They get protection from lawsuits either way. Cox and Wyden's colleagues in the House get behind their proposal, and section 230 is inserted inside the Communications Decency act alongside Senator Exxon's rules as a sort of compromise. Compared to the Blue Book of hardcore pornography, section 230 got very little public attention. It was as though Section 230 was invisible, Jeff writes in his book. And with that new version of the Communications decency Act. On February 8, 1996, with 81 votes in the Senate, a big majority in the House, and a signature from President Bill Clinton, section 230 passes. The Communications Decency act had a very short life. The same day it was signed into law, the ACLU sued the government, saying that Senator Exxon's rules about online porn were unconstitutional. The ACLU won, and in 1997 the Communications Decency act was struck down, except for Section 230. That part remained left there like a single ionic pillar, standing strong amidst the ruins, still standing strong today. So if you're trying to sort out where you're at on section 230, or even if you think you know where you're at on it, check out this little coda. It's one of the most surprising things I learned from Jeff's book, and I don't think it's widely appreciated even by people who know this story. In most retellings of Section 230's origin, the ruling against Prodigy is described as a moment of alarm, even panic, the kind of decision lawmakers believed they needed to respond to urgently. That's how one of the law's authors, Congressman Chris Cox, described that moment in a speech years later.
- [24:10]
E
Here I was reading an article in the Wall Street Journal about a court case in New York that had created a very dangerous legal precedent.
- [24:19]
A
But Jeff points out something crucial the the Prodigy ruling was not a binding legal precedent. It was a ruling on a single motion in a low level New York State court, not even a state appellate court, not a federal court. No one besides the parties in that one New York courtroom had to abide by this judge's ruling.
- [24:37]
B
This is one state court judge on Long island who had a bit of a spotty record. This judge.
- [24:44]
A
So yeah, tell me about that. I actually was one of. I found that to be a surprising and memorable part of your book. What's his name? His name is Judge Stuart Ain. Is that right? Justice Stewart Ain.
- [24:54]
B
Yeah, Justice Stuart Ain.
- [24:55]
A
Is he alive still?
- [24:57]
B
I do not believe so, no. So he faced disciplinary action for asking about the ethnicity of a lawyer who appeared before him. And he made some off handed comments that weren't really relevant.
- [25:16]
A
I mean, didn't he give the guy the finger? Yes, he was an Arab lawyer. And here I just got this from your book. He asked him his ethnicity. When the guy said he was Arab, the judge said from the bench, you're our sworn enemies. And then ultimately gave him the middle finger from the bench and said, what the fuck do you people want anyway? Is what I'm getting. You quote in your book. Yes. Okay. And then he continued to serve on the bench after that.
- [25:46]
B
He wasn't one of the most distinguished judges out there.
- [25:50]
A
As I've dug into section 230, I find it helpful to pause here for a moment. This was one clearly flawed judge making one ruling based on one set of circumstances at one point in time in a very new industry in a low level state court where decisions aren't binding on anyone else in the country.
- [26:11]
B
And yet his ruling was one of the the main motivators for Congress to design Section 230. If Justice AM had ruled differently, we might not have even had section 230.
- [26:28]
A
There are other ways this story could have gone. If Congress hadn't responded to the prodigy ruling by giving platforms sweeping immunity, it's possible more cases could have been brought, worked their way through the courts with more judges weighing in, more appeals and a more nuanced legal framework could have developed for the Internet. Or Congress might have come up with a different solution. Maybe granting sites partial protection from lawsuits or requiring them to take certain actions, like making a good faith effort to moderate harmful content actually be good Samaritans in order to get Section 230 protection. But this is the way the story did go and it landed us here with the Internet we have today where lies deepfakes, scams are running rampant, fueled by tech companies who know we can't really sue them. After a quick break, we return to the present, where there's a real divide over section 230 and where Jeff Kossif has some concerns about my reporting.
- [27:38]
F
There's a battle playing out right now over who should control American universities.
- [27:43]
A
Hands up, hands off. We're gonna bankrupt these universities.
- [27:48]
F
In season one, we were guessing what was to come. Now we know we want Nothing less.
- [27:54]
B
Than $500 million from Harvard, from the.
- [27:57]
F
Boston Globe, and on the media, it's season two of the Harvard plan. This time, it really is personal. Listen to on the Media, wherever you get your podcasts.
- [28:14]
A
Welcome back. We just heard the story of how and why Section 230 was created. But that was then, this is now. And the Internet of the 90s, made up of message boards and forums, was a very different place than the Internet of today. Companies have often strayed from the Good Samaritan intent of section 230. Prodigy's out of business, Big Tech is in charge and nearly untouchable. They've developed algorithms that feed us rage inducing content and AI that creates deep fakes. Content that keeps us addicted and afraid, misinformed and polarized. It seems right to revisit this special immunity that companies like this get from section 230. But you know who staunchly disagrees with me? Jeff Kossif. Jeff, the man who wrote the book on section 230. As educated in the history of it as they come. He is for the law. As Jeff and I were emailing to set up our interview, he told me that he'd listened to some of the reporting I'd done so far. Specifically the episode called I Believed in Sandy Hook, where I started laying out my case for rolling back section 230. I'd love the opportunity to present some counterarguments and attempt to change your mind. He wrote. I share many of your concerns about the modern Internet, but I worry that repealing 230 would make those problems worse. So once we were sitting down together, I asked him, do you feel like there's anything I misrepresented or misunderstood that's crucial in what I've reported so far? I mean, this is an ongoing project and I plan to share lots more reporting on it with listeners. But in that episode, were you like, oh, man, Brian just totally screwed this up?
- [29:52]
B
Well, I. I think that positioning Section 230 as the special privilege just for Internet companies, okay, is not a fair characterization of Section 230 because any company or individual who has a website or a blog or AN app receives 230 protection. But then also the people who post on those services also benefit from Section 230 tremendously because they would not have nearly as many avenues for their speech if it wasn't for Section 230.
- [30:30]
A
It's not just big tech. Basically. It's not just a protection for big tech.
- [30:34]
B
It's not.
- [30:36]
A
I've definitely emphasized the protection Section 230 gives to big tech companies. Those are the places I'm hyper focused on. But Jeff's right that Section 230 protects other organizations and people on the Internet too. It protects small news sites that have comment sections from being liable for what readers post there. It protects message boards in neighborhoods or small towns. It protects Wikipedia and it also protects regular social media users who reshare other people's posts from being liable for what's in those. Jeff feels it's important to point this out because it's those sometimes tiny, vulnerable, not so well resourced outlets and individuals that he worries would get crushed by the threat of litigation if Section 230 protections went away. Really paint the picture for me. Like we repeal section 230. What are the kind of most serious blows? Like what's the hellscape that emerges In a post 230 world, in your view?
- [31:32]
B
I think the biggest problem is that you see fewer avenues for user content. And they're only among these gigantic tech platforms, which is already a problem, but it becomes even more of a problem. There's not these other smaller niche sites because as a lawyer who's represented small news organizations, I can tell you that there are a lot of platforms that without section 230 would just get rid of their comment section. This idea that it's for Internet companies is just not correct. I'll give an example of Glassdoor. So Glassdoor is a website where people can rate and review both their employers and companies that they've applied to for jobs. Glassdoor has very thoughtful moderation policies. They have certain things that they. I mean, if there's a threat or personal information or things like that, they'll remove that. They're able to do that because of Section 230.
- [32:37]
A
Because without Section 230, Jeff says a company that has scathing reviews from anonymous employees about its work environment could send an angry letter to Glassdoor, claim the reviews are lies, they're defamatory, and Glassdoor would probably remove the reviews to avoid litigation with the angry company, essentially preventing people from putting honest feedback on their site. Every company on Glassdoor can make that kind of stink. Glassdoor could be overwhelmed by legal threats. They might Take posts down en masse, or they might just not be able to exist in the first place. Spaces like Glassdoor, where people can speak freely on the Internet could disappear.
- [33:12]
B
You can extend that to Yelp. So Yelp. Yelp has the same sort of policies as Glassdoor. You're suddenly going to have restaurants with all five star reviews.
- [33:23]
A
So on Internet, without section 230, we might have to accept a world without sites like Glassdoor or Yelp.
- [33:32]
B
Yeah, I, I think so. Or it would be sites very different from Glassdoor or Yelp.
- [33:38]
A
I guess my, my feeling is like if I had to imagine an Internet that didn't have Glassdoor or Yelp, which I think provide value, you know, I've used them. But there is a level of accountability and mechanisms for accountability against these very influential platforms that really affect day to day life and our democracy. That might be a trade off I'm willing to make. But what else am I not appreciating?
- [34:07]
B
Well, I think you're not appreciating the First Amendment very much.
- [34:10]
A
Oh, okay.
- [34:11]
B
Without Section 230, you're not going to have that former employee or the customer who is ripped off by a car mechanic. They're not going to have an outlet to go speak to. It protects the speakers. I mean the people who want to have an outlet.
- [34:28]
A
In his book, Jeff writes, I did not come to this project as an unbiased observer. I am a former journalist and lawyer for newspapers and websites and I have an unabashed enthusiasm for free speech. Section 230's broad immunity has been a net benefit to American society. But I can understand why someone could reach the exact opposite determination because of the real problems that have arisen as a result of irresponsible online platforms. This book is a biography, not a love story, not a tribute, and hopefully not an obituary. Jeff wrote that in 2019. By that point, critics and lawmakers had started to take aim at Section 230, blaming it for lots of the problems that have escalated on the Internet. Hence his worry that he might be writing an obituary. And obviously with senators railing against Section 230 again at a hearing just last week, saying it has to go if we want to keep children safe online. It's a fear of Jeff's that I imagine has not gone away. Here's Democrat Amy Klobuchar last week.
- [35:32]
C
It's long past time to repeal Section 230. I had thought, well, no, maybe we can put in these rules in place and the tech companies will work with us. And that just hasn't happened, the opposite has happened. And as we approach this 30 year anniversary, maybe it's time to do a major assessment, which takes for any parent about one minute to realize the harm that has been caused by all of this.
- [35:57]
A
I also believe that Section 230 warrants a major reassessment, but especially after learning the history of the law from Jeff, I'll cop to some jitters when I hear senators stridently demanding full repeal of section 230 without also talking about how they're going to protect speech. To Jeff's point, there's a scenario where, in an effort to hold big tech platforms accountable, people's ability to speak on the Internet could get stamped out too. Jeff's right to keep me focused on that, I still believe it's possible to balance both. There are thoughtful proposals out there for how to reform rather than repeal 230, which is where my head's currently at. We'll dig into some of those in the New Year. I'm really curious what you all think of this. Come chat about it with me on substack? Everything.substack.com you can send me a message there or we have an open free chat room where everybody can weigh in and and Substack is not liable for what you say. Also, you can DM me on Instagram Ryhread that's B R I H R E E D See, I am not a Luddite. I don't think these platforms should go away necessarily. I use them. I just think there should be more ways to hold them accountable, to make them better than they currently are. Jeff Kossif's book is called the 26 Words that Created the Internet. Check it out. Today's episode was produced by Sam Egan. It was edited by our managing editor, Kevin Sullivan. Robin Semion and I are the executive producers of Question Everything. Our team also includes producers Sophie Kazis and Zach St. Louis, contributing editors Neil Drumming and Jen Kinney, and associate producers Kevin Shepard and Emma Gorillo. This episode was fact checked by Annika Robbins, mixing and sound design by Sharif Youssef. Our music is by Matt McGinley. Our KCRW partners include Arnie Seiple, Tejala Jamera, Natalie Hill, and Jennifer Farrow. We'll see you soon.
- [37:51]
G
I just got my new phone and the KCRW app is the best way to get the music and shows you love from kcrw. And it's been totally redone to be cleaner, faster and more reliable. And there's two new music Dance 24 and Vintage 24 and they're only in the app plus real time now playing so you never miss a track. I ID look up KCRW in the app store and be sure to make a free account to use all the new features.