Roundup of the House Commerce Committee Hearing on Section 230
Yesterday, the House Energy & Commerce Committee (the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology and the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce) held a hearing called “Fostering a Healthier Internet to Protect Consumers.” The hearing page. This post rounds up some links from the event:
- The Democrats’ memo.
- The Republicans’ memo. The Democrats’ memo is mostly vanilla. In contrast, the Republicans’ memo is terrible. It is filled with inaccuracies, anti-tech venom, and talking points typically associated with the “libs.” TechFreedom’s must-read rejoinder to the Republicans’ memo.
- Rep. Walden’s opening remarks.
Witnesses’ written testimony:
- Steve Huffman, Reddit
- Danielle Keats Citron, Boston University
- Corynne McSherry, EFF
- Hany Farid, UC Berkeley
- Katie Oyama, Google
- Gretchen Peters, Alliance to Counter Crime Online
Some commentary in conjunction with the hearing:
- Elliot Harmon, EFF, Changing Section 230 Would Strengthen the Biggest Tech Companies. Lots of good lines, including:
- “If lawmakers weakened Section 230, they wouldn’t just be threatening those spaces — they would risk kicking some people completely off the internet. Without Section 230, platforms would effectively have to determine the risk of a user before that user would ever be allowed to speak.”
- “Future legislation to erode Section 230 might do nothing more than further harden Facebook and Google from meaningful competition.” For more on this point, see my Balkinization post.
- Sophia Cope, EFF Urges Congress Not to Dismantle Section 230
- Eric Goldman, The PLAN Act Proposes to Amend Section 230 to “Protect”…Landlords and Hotel Chains?
- Eric Goldman, Top Myths About Content Moderation
- Robert Winterton, Section 230 Should be in Our Trade Agreements. Here’s Why.
- Matt Schruers, Myths and Facts about Section 230