Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is often called "The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet." This 1996 law grants platforms broad legal immunity against claims arising from both third-party content that they host, and good-faith content moderation decisions that they make. Most observers agree that without Section 230 immunity, or some variant of it, the modern internet and social media could not exist. Nonetheless, Section 230 has been subject to vociferous criticism, with both Presidents Biden and Trump having called for its repeal. Critics claim that Section 230 lets platforms have it both ways, leaving them free to host harmful content but also to block any content they object to. This chapter argues that criticisms of Section 230 are largely unwarranted. The diversity of the modern internet, and ability of ordinary individuals to reach broad audiences on the internet, would be impossible without platform immunity. As such, calls for repeal of or major amendments to Section 230 are deeply unwise. The chapter concludes by pointing to important limits on Section 230 immunity and identifying some narrow amendments to Section 230 that may be warranted.

After having argued against most current regulatory reform proposals directed at social media, this final chapter considers some regulatory initiatives worthy of consideration. It begins, however, with a call for caution. The principle of "First, do no harm" in medical ethics is highly relevant here. Social media is too new, and too rapidly evolving, for regulators to be able to confidently predict either the current impact of regulation or its long term effects, so regulators must act with humility. That said, social media also is not a law-free zone. Long-standing bodies of law, such as antitrust, contract, tort, and even family law, can and should be applied to social media firms in the same way as other private actors. Furthermore, even Section 230 in its current form should not be sacrosanct, and there is also room to consider granting platform users modest procedural protections against arbitrary content moderation decisions. Finally, there are strong arguments for a federal data privacy law, not directed at social media in particular but certainly applicable to it. In short, social media should not be above the law – but nor should it be the target of lawfare.

This paper considers the goals of regulators in different countries working on regulating online platforms and how those varied motivations influence the potential for international coordination and cooperation on platform governance. different policy debates and goals surrounding online platform responsibility. The analysis identifies different policy goals related to three different types of obligations that regulators may impose on online platforms: responsibilities to target particular categories of unwanted content, responsibilities for platforms that wield particularly significant influence, and responsibilities to be transparent about platform decision-making. Reviewing the proposals that have emerged in each of these categories across different countries, the paper examines which of these three policy goals present the greatest opportunities for international coordination and agreement and which of them actually require such coordination in order to be effectively implemented. Finally, it considers what lessons can be drawn from existing policy efforts for how to foster greater coordination around areas of common interest related to online platforms.

This paper summarizes the United States’ legal framework governing Internet “platforms” that publish third-party content. It highlights three key features of U.S. law: the constitutional protections for free speech and press, the statutory immunity provided by 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”), and the limits on state regulation of the Internet. It also discusses US efforts to impose mandatory transparency obligations on Internet “platforms.”

Today three forces threaten to limit speech. The first pits guns against words, creating a showdown between the Second Amendment and the First. The second sees powerful speakers invoking their right to speak in order to silence other people’s speech. Third, and perhaps the most subtle, the monitoring of our digital speech by government and business chills our ability to say what we want online. Free speech will survive provided we remain vigilant in defending the speech rights of the minority against what has been called the tyranny of the majority.