Social media tech companies are facing backlash for being biased in publishing certain content affecting the society such as political issues. Section 230 Act of 1966 grants all social media companies immunity for all the content published on their platforms by third parties. Giant Tech companies such as Facebook and Twitter have received criticism for published content moderation that favors certain political views over others. Repealing this Act will require those companies to be legally liable for what their users post online, implying that they must monitor all the published content so as to stay safe from legal liability. Up to this point, concerns remain whether repealing Section 230 Act will actually lead to social media companies changing their bias in publishing or moderating content.
Opponents of repealing Section 230 argue that social media companies should remain free to do whatever they want with the generated content on their platforms. People who do not like the nature of the content or the way the content is displayed on the companies’ social media platforms should consider not using them. Some people also think that repealing Section 230 will allow the government to censor information. This implies that whatever people post on their social media platforms will be monitored and removed or published depending on the government’s approval of the content. This will violate people’s freedom of speech, and the government might use the opportunity to protect or promote certain information that does not reflect the truth in the society.
Proponents of repealing Section 230, however, feel that it is a brilliant idea because most of the existing social media companies have been suppressing conservative voices on certain issues affecting the society using algorithims. People holding this perspective believe that the use of algorithms makes social media platforms biased. To prevent this kind of bias, the proponents feel that it is essential for social media companies to be responsible for what is published on their websites. Although everyone has freedom of speech, creating algorithms that can sway the opinion of the public using social media platforms equals misinformation, which is not considered as free speech. Because of that, the immunity of social media platforms should be lifted making them liable for their published content.
There are differing opinions as to whether repealing Section 230 will result in social media companies changing their bias. Opponents of repealing Section 230 feel that if the immunity of social media platforms is removed, censorship of information to publish some while eliminating other content for legal concerns will lead to more circulation of biased content. The proponents feel that Section 230 should be repealed because social media platforms are using the current law to modify published information using algorithims to sway public opinion, hence making them biased. From these two points of view, bias already exists on social media platforms through the use of algorithms , and repealing of Section 230 is essential. The new legislation replacing Section 230, must ensure that the tech companies do not exploit it to create another form of bias, to violate the public’s freedom of expression.