Editor’s Note: This is a guest commentary. The opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.
Social networking companies dodge accountability by hiding behind a 26-word fragment of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Commonly called Section 230, this piece of the larger Communications Act of 1934 protects social media and other online platforms that share content created by third-party users.
According to Section 230, “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.” To put it simply, online platforms like Instagram and X cannot be held liable for their users’ content.
Eight years after Section 230 was put into effect, a group of Harvard students launched TheFacebook. The ensuing social media boom hijacked the protections of Section 230 and allowed social networks to avoid legal accountability for content disseminated on their sites. Companies like Meta and Google have dodged content moderation lawsuits by citing this law that predates the existence of every major social network. In order to truly hold these companies accountable, Section 230 must be amended or put to pasture.
In theory, Section 230 provides a vital layer of protection. To maintain free online communication, some companies must offer platforms on which to communicate. Without Section 230, these platforms could be struck with lawsuit after lawsuit whenever one user has a complaint about another’s content. In reality, regulating online speech with Section 230 is like trying to conduct traffic stops with a Model T. The law has been outpaced by the scope of online communication.
Despite the shield of Section 230, full-time courtroom resident Mark Zuckerberg and his ilk still receive a healthy dose of legal action. In a series of landmark cases this decade, tech giants have been compared to drug kingpins. A jury in Los Angeles recently ruled that Meta and Google deliberately implemented addictive design principles like “infinite scroll” at the expense of their users’ mental health. But, beyond the scrutiny of their product design, tech giants must be held accountable for their role as drug mules. Not only do they peddle an addictive product, but they also offer a vehicle for users to disseminate dangerous content.
Meta is one of several companies that have been accused of allowing users to spread disinformation en masse. The company behind Facebook and Instagram drew scrutiny for its alleged role in contributing to misinformation surrounding the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, COVID-19, and the Jan. 6 Insurrection. In 2024, the European Union investigated Meta for its failure to quell deceptive political content. That same year, just months before the 2024 U.S. election, Meta killed its fact-checking tool. Since that time, user-posted disinformation has continued to fester on Facebook, Instagram and other social networks. Despite this — or because of it — Meta sustained an average of 3.56 billion daily active users in March 2026.
Correcting the absurdity of Section 230 would not make a utopia out of the internet overnight. Despite every national or international regulation, the internet remains bound by the same primal rules of any ecosystem. It is populated by organisms within a food chain. Its apex predators — companies that have grown corpulent with information and capital — have a biological imperative to worm their way around the rules. Corporations sustained by free speech on the internet are always evolving in a constant race to outpace regulation. If our country ever wants to succeed in holding these companies accountable for the undeniable harm they cause, we must repeal or amend this dinosaur legislation for the sake of safe and truthful online communication.
