Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. News

Justice Department proposes rolling back protections for social media platforms

By

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed rolling back the protections that social media platforms and tech companies have — a move that could make them legally responsible for what people post on their platforms.

Recommended Videos

These changes seek to make social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter better address content on their sites when it comes to what is acceptable and what should be taken down, according to the policy document released Wednesday.

Related

Conservatives have long alleged that major tech companies are biased against their voices; tech giants like Facebook and Google have denied these claims.

The DOJ proposal specifically cites the protections of Section 230 in the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which prevent tech companies from being held civilly liable for content their users post.

“This expansive statutory interpretation, combined with technological developments, has reduced the incentives of online platforms to address illicit activity on their services and, at the same time, left them free to moderate lawful content without transparency or accountability,” the proposal reads. “The time has, therefore, come to realign the scope of Section 230 with the realities of the modern internet so that it continues to foster innovation and free speech but also provides stronger incentives for online platforms to address illicit material on their services.”

The proposal would scale back some of the protections these platforms have, including making them more responsible for third-party content and requiring them to be fair and consistent with what kind of content is taken down. Platforms would have to provide reasonable explanations for their decisions.

The DOJ has requested that companies no longer be allowed to remove “otherwise objectionable” content from their sites. Instead, tech companies would only be able to remove content if it was “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing” or if it violated federal law or promoted violence or terrorism.

The plan would strictly define Section 230’s “good faith” requirement, saying that platforms must have clear terms of use and must abide by those terms of use, and that any content that is removed must fit within the more stringent definition of what can be moderated. It also says that platforms must provide notice to the user explaining why their content was moderated.

@dole777/Unsplash

The DOJ’s legislative plan still has to go through Congress before it can be adopted. 

Earlier today, a group of Republican senators also introduced limitations on Section 230 via the Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act. The proposed bill would allow users who don’t believe that a platform is “operating in good faith,” by being inconsistent and unfair with what content is acceptable or taken down, to sue these companies for $5,000 plus attorneys’ fees. 

Both of these proposed limitations and changes come on the heels of President Donald Trump signing an executive order last month to remove the protections of Section 230 in the Communications Decency Act of 1996. 

Section 230 says: “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.”

Trump’s executive order resulted from Twitter attaching a fact-check message to Trump’s tweet about how a mail-in ballot system would promote voter fraud, and was seen by some critics as retaliation against tech companies that had moderated his comments.

Twitter told Digital Trends that they have nothing to share about their thoughts on the DOJ’s proposal. Digital Trends reached out to Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube for comment on the reported bill. We’ll update this story when we hear back.

Editors' Recommendations

Topics
Allison Matyus
Allison Matyus
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Allison Matyus is a general news reporter at Digital Trends. She covers any and all tech news, including issues around social…
Trump plans executive order targeting social media after Twitter fact-check spat
Trump Twitter

After threatening to regulate or even shut down social media networks, President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order on social media, the White House said. What that exactly means, however, remains unclear.

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters that the executive order would come on Thursday, but provided no additional details.

Read more
Trump threatens to shut down social media platforms
Donald Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump early on Wednesday morning threatened to "strongly regulate" or shut down social media platforms after Twitter fact-checked him for the first time.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265601611310739456

Read more
Trump’s FCC order could make social media even more of a garbage fire
How to Watch Trump State of the Union

The White House wants the U.S. government to have a much bigger say in what you see on social media.
A new draft executive order from the White House would put the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in charge of deciding what sites like Twitter and Facebook can remove from their sites, reports CNN, which obtained a copy of a summary of the order.
President Donald Trump and other conservative leaders have long said that conservative content is censored on major social media networks -- even though the data clearly shows otherwise. This order, called “Protecting Americans from Online Censorship,” appears aimed at making it so that conservative content could better thrive on those sites, regardless of whether it breaks the rules.

The order could help conspiracy theories, misinformation, and even deepfakes thrive even more on social media, if they're considered political conversation. Conspiracy theorists like Infowars' Alex Jones have claimed that they're censored for being conservative after being kicked off of major social media sites. 
The proposed order calls for the FCC to create new regulations on how and when the law will protect social media websites, specifically when those sites decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms. The summary also suggests that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should take those newly created regulations into account when it files lawsuits against companies or opens investigations into their practices.
As the law stands now, social media companies are not liable for the content posted by their users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. They also receive immunity for taking down questionable content, as long as that takedown appears to be “in good faith.” While that provision exists so internet companies aren't the target of constant lawsuits, the executive order would remove that immunity if a user isn’t notified of the content being taken down, or if the takedown is deemed anticompetitive.
The move presumably has something to do with Trump’s largely unfounded view that social media companies show a systemic bias against conservatives. According to the summary, the Trump administration has received 15,000 complaints on social media companies censoring political conversation on their platforms.
Those complaints likely came from the website the White House created earlier this year specifically asking for consumers to complain about partisan bias by social media companies.
Presuming the executive order gets filed, the FTC will also get in on the action. It will have to open a “public complaint docket,” and it will have to work with the FCC on a report on how social media companies curate content on their platforms and whether that curation is done in a neutral way.
The summary suggests that any company whose user base accounts for at least 1/8 of the U.S. population would be subject to scrutiny. That means in addition to Twitter and Facebook, companies such as Google, Pinterest, and Snapchat might also be subject to investigation. We reached out to Twitter and Facebook for comment and will update this story if we hear back. 

Read more