The partisan effort of sunset “26 words that created the Internet” on the way

Section 230, Linchpin Law, which dictates how online platforms have been organized for decades, and it seems that it is scheduled to end. According to informationDemocratic Senator Dick Durbin and Republican Lindsay Graham are planning to present a new bill that will determine the date of the end of the law and encourage technology companies to provide alternatives to what should be replaced.

According to informationThe bill can be presented early on Monday, March 24th, and it is expected that the two -party Republican Josh Holie, Marsha Blackburn and Democrats will be presented, and Democrats, Sheldon Whitehos, and Amy Cluboshr, who are said to be ready to participate in the sponsorship of the bill. It is also a modified version of a an offer Last year was made in the House of Representatives by Republican Cathy Rodgers and Democrat Frank Junior, so there is some juice for this thing throughout Congress. The suggestion Sunseet SECTION 230, which determines January 1, 2027, will make a deadly history of the law that many technology companies have been based on the legal challenges of ducks.

The maneuver that seems to be Durbin and Graham is trying to force technology companies on the table and talk about the alternatives of Section 230. By setting a deadline, the message is mainly, “Come help us in writing the replacement law or losing this protection in full.” The latter must be basically an inorold result of technology companies, as they will leave them very vulnerable to legal challenges.

Section 230 of the Divine Communications Law, as is the case, mainly gives legal immunity from being a law responsible for the content published on their platforms by users. It is often referred to as “26 words created the Internet” because it created a framework for the content created by the user. But its legal protection of companies was criticized by both the two main political parties for very different reasons.

Democrats came after Article 230 to allow major technology companies to be deserted in their duties to remove harmful and abhorrent content, as they lack the “good Samaritan” level in moderation in good faith. Auditing from the left He appeared during the Covid epidemic When the wrong information was rampant on platforms such as Facebook and some Democrats wanted the company to do more to address this issue. Republicans, in the meantime they want to cancel Article 230 because they believe Technology companies were excessive to remove content And I think their views were “monitoring.” It is where you can see cracks begin to form in this partisan effort.

There is likely to be a room for the re -evaluation of the protection given under Article 230. For example, it may be useful to ask, even if the platforms are not supposed to be responsible for what random users publish, should they be responsible for enhancing this content illegally or harmful?

But this brings us back to the basic gap between the two parties invested in Section 230. They can agree that they want to retreat. But their goals in doing this are completely opposed. If the two parties agree to cancel section 230, but an agreement cannot be reached on what should come after that, you end up with the worst world. Frankly, with this Congress and the president, this appears to be equal in the course.