Thirty years ago, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was born out of real concerns for the future. Lawmakers feared that the early internet, fragile and experimental, would be smothered in lawsuits before it had the chance to become the marketplace of ideas many hoped it could become.

Section 230 offered a shield, allowing platforms to host user-generated content without being treated as the publisher of every word posted.

At the time, it encouraged good-faith moderation so obscene or illegal material could be removed without punishment. That bargain made sense in 1996, when the internet was a digital frontier, and most platforms barely had a business model.

Section 230 is not outdated because it failed; rather, it is outdated because it worked too well. It succeeded beyond anyone’s imagination, helping create some of the largest and most powerful corporations in history. This success is precisely why it must now be abolished or fundamentally restructured.

There is an irony in finding common cause with trial lawyers on this issue. Conservatives are rightly skeptical of a legal culture that treats litigation as sport. However, this fight is about restoring free speech in a free marketplace of ideas, something Section 230 now actively undermines rather than protects.

The original premise of Section 230 was neutrality. Platforms would not be liable because they were not publishers. They were digital town squares, hosting speech rather than shaping it. That distinction no longer exists in practice. Modern platforms do not merely host content. They curate it, amplify it, suppress it, monetize it and algorithmically steer it. They decide what is seen, what goes viral, and what quietly disappears. Yet they still claim the legal immunity afforded to passive message boards and dial-up-era chat rooms.

This legal fiction has allowed Big Tech to have it both ways. When content is profitable, they act as publishers, promoting it through algorithms designed to maximize engagement and advertising revenue. When content is harmful, defamatory or politically inconvenient, they retreat behind Section 230 and insist they are neutral platforms with no responsibility. No newspaper in America enjoys that privilege. No broadcaster does either. Only Silicon Valley.

Section 230 has quietly distorted competition. By insulating dominant platforms from liability, it has raised the cost of entry for smaller competitors who cannot afford endless compliance teams or political favor trading. Startups that promise viewpoint neutrality or alternative moderation models are squeezed out before they can scale, while entrenched players use immunity as a moat to protect their dominance. That is hardly a free market; instead, it is regulatory favoritism dressed up as innovation. It is one more reason the law that once empowered the internet now entrenches its most powerful gatekeepers.

The political consequences have been impossible to ignore. Conservative voices were not simply debated or challenged. They were flagged, throttled, demonetized and banned. All of this happened under the comforting umbrella of Section 230. Platforms insisted they were private companies exercising discretion, even as they coordinated with government agencies, advocacy groups and left-leaning fact-checkers. The shield designed to protect free speech became the hammer to suppress it.

Today’s platforms are not fragile startups operating out of garages. They are trillion-dollar companies with legal departments larger than many federal agencies. They already moderate aggressively and police content when it suits their interests. The idea that accountability would suddenly plunge the internet into chaos is a scare tactic designed to preserve power, not freedom.

There is also the human cost. Victims of harassment, exploitation and trafficking are routinely told they have no recourse because the platform that hosted or amplified the harm is immune. Parents watch as algorithm-driven feeds push destructive content to children, yet the companies responsible face no liability. Section 230 has created a double standard where profit is privatized and harm is socialized.

Repealing or significantly reforming Section 230 would force a long-overdue choice. Platforms could embrace true neutrality and act like common carriers, or they could accept the responsibilities that come with editorial control. What they should not be allowed to do is pretend they are both at once.

Thirty years after its passage, Section 230 no longer serves its original purpose. It does not protect people’s rights and privacy. It protects monopolies with unbridled authority. It no longer fosters open debate. It distorts it. Free speech does not require legal immunity from corporate censorship. It requires accountability, transparency and access to an open playing field with due process to review and compensate for violations in the distribution and modifications.

The internet will survive without Section 230. In fact, it may finally become what it was promised to be.

_____

ABOUT THE WRITER

Shaun McCutcheon is a free-speech advocate and an electrical engineer. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

_____

©2026 Tribune Content Agency, LLC