Ethical Issues Of Section 230

The modern internet is a critical tool for communication, information distribution, and commerce, however, it has also created new challenges for society, including the spread of disinformation, hate speech, and other harmful content. This paper explores the controversy surrounding Section (§) 230 and the legal responsibility of internet platforms for content promoted by their algorithms. § 230(c)(1)) of the Communications Decency Act states, “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". This provides immunity to internet service providers (ISPs) and platforms when they make targeted recommendations and host information

The ongoing Supreme Court case, Gonzalez v. Google, is pertinent to the determination of the future of §230 and the Internet as we know it. Ultimately, any approach to holding internet companies responsible for algorithm-promoted content must balance concerns related to free speech, innovation, and user safety. The broad interpretation of Section 230 provides internet companies with near-blanket protection and undermines the incentive to create a healthier online environment. The intersection of modern technology and media law is a rapidly evolving field, and though it is constantly changing directions, one aspect remains constant, Section 230 requires reformation–not eradication–to better balance the competing interests of free speech and user protection and will not infringe on the constitutionally protected First Amendment speech rights of internet platforms when specified and implemented

The importance of free speech and innovation is just as important as holding online platforms accountable for the content they promote so that users are protected. This paper argues that tech giants should be held legally responsible for content promoted by their algorithms and that Section 230 should be reformed to balance the competing interests of free speech and user protection. By doing so, we can create a healthier online ecosystem that promotes free speech, innovation, and user safety. The Supreme Court's decision in Gonzalez v. Google will have a profound effect on the regulation of online platforms and the protection of free speech. It will also set an important precedent for future cases involving the liability of online platforms for harmful content posted. Balancing free speech and user protection is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of the interests involved. “Without Section 230(c)(1)’s broad immunity, platforms will need to grapple with a wider range of substantive legal questions about how their platforms operate and defend their decisions on the merits in court. Some cases will lead to liability, forcing platforms to think more carefully about the ways that algorithms can cause harm. But some—perhaps even most—cases will not,