Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—the provision that protects tech platforms from legal liability for content posted by their users—has long been a point of contention among lawmakers. Since its passage in 1996, it has fueled frustration across the political spectrum, with critics arguing that it enables Big Tech to dodge accountability. Now, nearly three decades later, a bipartisan group of senators is making a renewed push to dismantle it, with Senators Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin crossing party lines to draft a bill aimed at repealing Section 230, according to The Information.
For years, Section 230 has been a scapegoat not just for politicians eager to rein in tech giants, but also for users frustrated by the prevalence of harmful content online. The clause has often been cited by platforms as a reason they cannot—or will not—remove content that, while not outright illegal, may be offensive or harmful, such as hate speech or harassment. Originally intended to foster innovation during the internet’s formative years, the provision now feels outdated to many observers. Few beyond the C-suites and legal departments of tech companies still support it.
Still, experts warn that repealing Section 230 outright would be a mistake.
“Sunsetting Section 230 without proposing ways to change it is like taking a hostage without having a list of demands ready,” says Adam Kovacevich, founder and CEO of the Chamber of Progress, a tech industry trade group. “This is a deeply unserious exercise that reflects the bipartisan opposition to 230 is only surface-deep.”
Kovacevich argues that reform—not repeal—is the more responsible path forward. “If Congress doesn’t like Section 230, it should mend it, not end it,” he says.
The bipartisan momentum behind the new bill gives it more traction than past attempts, which have often faltered due to partisan divides. But even with broader political alignment, a full repeal could backfire. Republicans have criticized the provision for allowing platforms to suppress content they favor, while Democrats believe it enables platforms to avoid accountability for hosting harmful material. Both sides want change—but for opposing reasons.
“Both Democrats and Republicans should be wary of getting rid of Section 230,” warns Anupam Chander, a law professor at Georgetown University. He notes that the law protects a range of actions that each party values—even if it also enables behavior they oppose.
“Section 230 protects platforms against lawsuits when they get rid of hate speech, such as lawsuits alleging discrimination against men or religion,” Chander says. That’s a key concern for liberal-leaning individuals who view anti-DEI backlash and culture war rhetoric as regressive. Yet conservatives, too, benefit from the law’s broad protections. “Section 230 also protects platforms like X or Truth Social so that they aren’t held liable for the speech they tolerate on their platforms,” he says.
Without those protections, platforms could face costly legal challenges for hosting controversial speech—potentially chilling the very discourse their users want to preserve. “Both sides want different things from a post-230 world,” Chander adds, “but may find the speech they like deemed too risky by internet platforms.”
Ultimately, he argues, it’s safer to reform the law than to scrap it entirely: “Being sued in the United States without a liability shield is an expensive and time-consuming undertaking.”
No comments