Actions

Difference between revisions of "Diverging paths for platform liability - the impact of Section 230 and the choice for America’s digital future"

 
Line 7: Line 7:
 
|short_description=Section 230 created net 2.0 but some in DC are considering taking it away. What’s been the impact of Section 230, and what should be the path forward for the U.S.?
 
|short_description=Section 230 created net 2.0 but some in DC are considering taking it away. What’s been the impact of Section 230, and what should be the path forward for the U.S.?
 
|Hashtag=#Section230
 
|Hashtag=#Section230
 +
|Panelist_1=Emma Llanso
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 12:44, 11 June 2019

As a result of growing global techlash, many countries are strengthening penalties for online platforms that host “harmful” user-created content.

The U.S. has so far not embraced this approach. Instead, in 1996, the Communications Decency Act was passed into law. The law contained Section 230, a clause that meant online platforms, with some exceptions, would not be held liable for content created and posted to their service by users. Section 230 has been credited with enabling user-created content online, or “Net 2.0.”

As techlash and skepticism to Section 230 grows in Congress, what has been the impact of Section 230 in the U.S.? Should the U.S. continue down this path or should we follow other countries?

Short Description

Section 230 created net 2.0 but some in DC are considering taking it away. What’s been the impact of Section 230, and what should be the path forward for the U.S.?

Panel Hashtag

#Section230


Panelists

Emma Llanso