Public Knowledge

Public Knowledge Proposes Section 230 Reforms That Address Harms While Protecting Free Expression The potential harms of digital content online can be devastating — but removing Section 230 would only devastate freedom of expression in its place.

Last year, Policy Director @lisahmacpherson.bsky.social laid out two reform ideas that both avoid infringing on either the user or platform’s free expression, and could meaningfully allow for platform accountability for user harm – especially for kids.

Graphic of a cell phone receiving notifications from various apps, with text that reads: Public Knowledge. Section 230 30th anniversary

Keeping #Section230 as is would be politically untenable, but thoughtful reform can address real harms without incentivizing platforms to silence speech or creating barriers that only #BigTech can overcome.

Public Knowledge Applauds Bill Protecting the Public’s Right to Repair Public Knowledge promotes freedom of expression, an open internet, and access to affordable communications tools and creative works. We work to shape policy.

🎉 Today, @lujan.senate.gov, @morelle.house.gov, & @gluesenkampperez.house.gov introduced the “Fair Repair Act” to protect consumers’ right to repair their own electronic products. Read our statement from Senior Policy Advocate Patrick Gallaher:

"What [Section 230] does is create breathing room for platforms to moderate content without facing endless litigation over every removal decision, while simultaneously protecting their ability to leave up controversial-but-legal speech without being treated as the publisher of that content."

Assessing Section 230 Reform Proposals in the 119th Congress Lawmakers cite various reasons for supporting proposals to reform or repeal Section 230. But what effect would these have in practice?

In her latest blog post, Policy Analyst @mwils.bsky.social breaks down various Section 230 reform and repeal proposals — and why these ideas won't work as intended.

Supporters of stripping #Section230 protections for online platforms cite various reasons for doing so, including preventing bias in content moderation, targeting AI deepfakes, and establishing platform accountability. But what would this look like in practice?

This ad is a funny depiction and close to the example I usually use, but the possibilities for betrayal are even more insidious and subtle if advertising becomes a component of the AI business model.

There’s a lot of misinformation floating around touting a Section 230 repeal as the way to go to reign in Big Tech.

This is not only untrue but a huge threat to social media platforms and the broader internet as we know it.

How to Go Beyond Section 230 Without Crashing the Internet Section 230 can change, and given that digital platforms have a very different role in society and the economy now than they did

Read the 2019 blog from @bergmayer.net outlining how policymakers can address real harms from online platforms without destroying core protections for free speech in the process:

Graphic of a cell phone receiving notifications from various apps, with text that reads: Public Knowledge. Section 230 30th anniversary

There are many issues with current proposals to reform and repeal #Section230 of the Communications Decency Act, all of which could have serious repercussions for freedom of expression online. But what would good reform look like?

I finally got around to writing a "why data brokers are not covered by 230 just because they are repackaging shit they found on the internet"

Wrote this after the 1st "Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation" hearing in the House Judiciary last year. The facts haven't changed since. Yet Repubs continue to waste resources on the POTENTIAL for censorship of Americans in EU, while ignoring real censorship right here in the U.S.

The Censorship Alarm Is Ringing in the Wrong Direction The recent hearing in the House Judiciary on a "foreign censorship threat" was centered on a misleading and ill-informed premise.

"Instead of trying to influence laws across the Atlantic, Congress would serve American speech rights better by tackling the real censorship happening at home." Read from @mwils.bsky.social on why these hearings are a poor use of time:

At today's House Judiciary hearing, House Republicans are once again obsessing over imaginary European censorship while ignoring the Trump administration's real assault on free speech: frivolous lawsuits against media, defunding universities over ideology, and retaliating against watchdog groups.

Read our letter to the Senate subcommittee with @freepress.bsky.social, @cwaunion.bsky.social, @wgawest.bsky.social, @publiccitizen.bsky.social, @nhmc.bsky.social, and others on why enforcers should block this deal and protect the First Amendment from political abuse of the merger review process.

And to be clear: Paramount-Skydance buying WBD would be just as bad. That deal would combine two of the Big Five studios, merge the #4 and #5 streaming services, and create a massive sports broadcasting power. Any sale of WBD that deepens media consolidation should be blocked.

We're also concerned about the current administration using merger review to extract political favors from media companies. We saw it with the Paramount-Skydance deal and @cbsnews.com. That can't happen again here.

Netflix says it needs to buy WBD to compete with YouTube. But the "merge to compete" argument has failed the public every time it's been tried, from AT&T-Time Warner to AOL-Time Warner. We're starting to see a pattern...

This deal would combine the #1 and #4 streaming services, give Netflix control of a major film studio, and reduce the number of buyers competing for writers, actors, and other creative workers. That means higher prices, fewer choices, and lower pay across the board.

Examining the Competitive Impact of the Proposed Netflix-Warner Brothers Transaction | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Today Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee is examining @netflix.com's proposed $72 billion acquisition of Warner Brothers Discovery. We urge enforcers to block this deal.

Data Brokers, and Other Things Not Covered by 230 Public Knowledge promotes freedom of expression, an open internet, and access to affordable communications tools and creative works. We work to shape policy.

#Section230 turns 30 this year, and it’s still widely misunderstood. While it protects platforms from being held liable for user speech, there are many instances where its protections do not apply — read the latest from @bergmayer.net:

This week, we'll examine the current Section 230 reform landscape – which largely focuses on making the internet safer for kids – and explain why so many proposals fail to meet these standards. Stay tuned for more!

A Policy Primer for Free Expression and Content Moderation, Part I: Centering Public Interest Values This first post of a four-part blog series provides a brief historical perspective on content moderation and highlights the importance of centering public interest values.

In 2024, we released A Policy Primer for Free Expression and Content Moderation, establishing a comprehensive framework for content moderation policy in the public interest. Taken together, these are the standards against which we'll measure every proposal that crosses our desk.

Principles to Protect Free Expression on the Internet Public Knowledge promotes freedom of expression, an open internet, and access to affordable communications tools and creative works. We work to shape policy.

In 2021, @publicknowledge.bsky.social published Section 230 Principles laying out the non-negotiables: reforms should focus on platforms' conduct rather than user speech, preserve ability of diverse voices to participate online, & avoid creating barriers that only benefit dominant players.

Graphic of a cell phone receiving notifications from various apps, with text that reads: Public Knowledge. Section 230 30th anniversary

Before assessing the #Section230 reform proposals currently circulating in Congress, it's important to articulate ourbaseline principles. Any Section 230 reform worth pursuing must protect free expression while addressing real platform harms.

Congressional lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are gearing up for #Section230 repeal, but this could mean an end to social media as we know it.

Information Collapse, Democratic Decline, and What We Can Do About It — Harvard ALI Social Impact Review False information spreads faster than truth on social media, and newsrooms across America continue to shutter at an alarming rate. Yet citizens aren’t helpless in democracy’s information crisis. By cu...

And if you want to take action now, check out this @harvard.edu ALI - Social Impact Review article, "Information Collapse, Democratic Decline, and What We Can Do About It," by @publicknowledge.bsky.social @mwils.bsky.social www.sir.advancedleadership.harvard.edu/articles/inf...

The @freepress.bsky.social report eloquently notes how to protect free speech and journalism: "Sustained and systemic resistance will be essential in the months and years ahead as a bulwark against tyranny."

What we are seeing is clearly a pattern of the Trump administration seeking to silence dissent. By intimidating, threatening, bullying, purchasing, locking-out, or locking-up media, this administration controls what you can and can not see or say.

Chokehold: Donald Trump’s War on Free Speech & the Need for Systemic Resistance This Free Press report examines the Trump administration’s hostile relationship with dissent and free expression in 2025. It analyzes how Trump and his political enablers have sought to undermine and ...

If you're having trouble tracking the dizzying number of attacks on free expression, check out the @freepress.bsky.social report, "Chokehold: Donald Trump’s War on Free Speech & the Need for Systemic Resistance," and prepare to be very, very alarmed. www.freepress.net/attack-on-fr...