Section 230

"Section 230" is the name given to a piece of the so-called "Communications Decency Act" ("CDA"),which allows websites and forums/message boards/chans to exist as they currently do. In recent years, neo-conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and "Free speech activist" types have argued for completely repealing this section of the CDA law in order to "stop censorship" of their voices by "Big Tech", mainly due to section (c)(2) allowing it. What those boomers fail to understand, is that replealing this entire part of the CDA would in fact, backfire and result in even moar censorship of "Dissenting voices".

"Section 230" allows sites such as 4chan, Twatter, and your beloved Encyclopedia Dramatica to exist without being shut down by constant empty-handed yet suddenly-liable-for-user-actions lolsuits. Basically, if an user of a site, (rather than a site owner) posts something that could get the site owner in any kind of deep shit, the site owner is not the one who is responsible for the users' actions. Obviously, the exception to this is sites that exist specifically to break the law, i.e. CP and Drug Market-type sites. For example, if an user of Wikipedia uploads something very illegal to the Wikipedia site, Jimbo Wales cannot be sued for the uploading users' personal actions, (although, obviously the illegal content is removed by site owners.)

Take into mind, all the dank fresh memes you see on sites like KnowYourMeme and le Plebbit or even on apps like Instagram or Amino. Section 230 protects these sites from having to automatically shut down, in the sad case that some luser would try to DMCA the memes (ala Pepe the Frog's creator) or sue for "copyright damages". The blame is then shifted onto the user who technically had uploaded the meme or "user-generated content". But without Section 230 in the CDA law, the sites will get fucked over instead!!

Section 230: Demystified

Since the original is written in dense legalese jargon like most acts and documents from congress, us at ED will attempt to put it in simpler terms: (This will mostly focus on paragraph (c) since the rest is just findings and other filler)

	“	(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker 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.	„

In other words, people who run websites like ED aren't responsible for your sorry ass if you upload CP or bomb making instructions, enjoy your V&.

	“	(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;	„

The reason why smarmy Libtards will say the website that b&s you is a private company that can do what they want, and the most contentious part of this whole document that pisses off people like Trump and others. The first few terms may specifically refer to pr0ns or whatever weird kind of hentai you whack off to, while "harassing" may be a good excuse to b& you if we ever get another GamerGate. Moving on:

	“	(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).	„

Which basically means blocking people. Not a hot issue with this legislature, since you'd have to be an absolutely whiny faggot to care about getting blocked, which is usually a badge of honor when dealing with journalists.

"So how does this affect me?"

Without Section 230 in place, this digital meme and drama library of gr8 knowledge will likely not be around.

Well, let's say your sorry ass decides to meme hard on something and posts a freshly shooped meme on say - 4chan, Reddit, or KnowYourMeme.

With Section 230 gone from the CDA, These sites would be considered "publishers" rather than farms of "user generated content". As a result, sites would then be held responsible for any actions or possible Revenue Loss from your posts - and as such, they would be moar likely to give your IP address account the perma-shoah to cover their own ass. Not to mention, if they get a DMCA or "cease and desist order" they are now more likely to close down their community/site because of having to cover legal costs out of their own pocket. Talk about "passing the buck," but in a bad way!

Not to mention - the Section 230 act is also what many "filesharing communities" are able to exist because of - as they can just state that the torrents or files are "user-generated" in a court of law (not that it often works though). In the horrible case that (Section) 230 is removed from the Communications Decency Act, say goodbye to ur free music, movies, and anything else "free" really... ...and get ready to quickly say goodbye to the "free" internet.

How do I fix law?

Generally in attempts to change this section, most politicians have been completely clueless on how to approach it, with some typical democrats even changing it as an excuse to push even moar censorship of "extremist content" or "hate speech"! However, some senators/reps have actually attempted proper rewrites of this law in attempt to close any loopholes. Some examples are below:

Exhibit A: Stop Suppressing Speech Act of 2020

c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive materialof unlawful or objectionable material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
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.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionableor harassing, that the provider or user determines to be unlawful, or that promotes violence or terrorism, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).(A); or
(C) any action taken to provide users with the option to restrict access to any other material, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

An actually useful law that only restricts private companies to the ability to only b& what is considered obscene, harassing or illegal on their website, rather than just remove what they like. Of course, it being a useful change, had 0 cosponsors and lied dormant forever.

Exhibit B: Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act of 2020

c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
(A) IN GENERAL.—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.
(B) APPLICABILITY.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any decision or agreement made or action taken by a provider or user of an interactive computer service to restrict access to or availability of material provided by another information content provider.
(ii) CIVIL LIABILITY.—Any applicable immunity for a decision or agreement made or action taken by a provider or user of an interactive computer service described in clause (i) shall be provided solely by paragraph (2).
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to behas an objectively reasonable belief is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionablepromoting self-harm, promoting terrorism, or unlawful, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)(A).

Unlike the one above, this one actually has cosponsors, and makes upstreams like CloudFlare and etc responsible for not censoring either, but all of these bills to change the section died when Trump left office.

Gallery

• 
• 
• 
• 

See Also

• "SOPA"/Stop Online Piracy Act - results of SOPA would have been about the same as gutting 230.
• Trans-Pacific Partnership - another bill that would have screwed up the internet
• Meme Combining - say goodbye to doing this freely if they get rid of "Section 230"
• The Pirate Bay - and this will go away too
• chans - the chans would be screwed
• Totse - a BBS-turned-website that was a perfect example of how to use Section 230 protection - too bad that Totse is gone for good...

External links

• Section 230 is On Trial. Here's What You Need to Know. - Feb 16 2023 - EFF website
• How Section 230 Changes Targeting Twitter and Facebook Could Backfire on Republicans - Newsweek
• The text of Section 230 itself
• Section 230 entry - On KYM
• English Wikipedia page on Section 230

Featured article February 19, 20 & 21, 2023
Preceded by Onision	Section 230	Succeeded by Fat