Repealing Section 230 would not curb Big Tech dominance or protect free speech — it would silence smaller platforms, crush innovation, and consolidate power in Silicon Valley by exposing internet forums to overwhelming legal liability.
The online world as we know it is under fire. Congress is deliberating legislation to roll back Section 230 protections, a debate that has persisted since the provisions inclusion in the Communications Decency Act of 1996. This crucial statute grants websites and digital platforms legal immunity from being responsible for illicit user-published content or speech.
While many conservatives critique Section 230 as legal cover for Big Tech platforms like Facebook and Google to censor right-leaning viewpoints and avoid accountability — which it surely has been in the past, during COVID and regarding the infamous Hunter Biden Laptop story — still, reality presents an uncomfortable paradox. Without these protections, only the largest platforms with resources to police content at scale would survive — likely further consolidating power in the hands of these Silicon Valley giants and failing to resolve underlying concerns over free speech.
Section 230 protects not just tech giants, but every platform and user.
At the advent of the internet, Section 230 was designed to encourage the private sector to moderate content on their platforms while protecting free expression. Rather than drowning tech companies in class action lawsuits and lawfare or consigning them to the dark universe of government-mandated speech codes, Congress made it clear: Users are responsible for their actions, not the platform.
This law is a shield — and not just for the biggest platforms. Smaller conservative platforms like Rumble and Truth Social also benefit from its protections. In fact, any website with user-generated posting is defended by this law, from Yelp and Etsy, to Wikipedia and The New York Times’ comments section.
Repealing Section 230 would silence more speech, not less — and only Big Tech could afford to survive.
Without Section 230, all platforms — but especially startups and companies with smaller compliance/legal teams — would face a major impediment to their business. All user generated content would, ultimately, need to be pre-screened before public publishing. This would mean less social media activity, skewed reviews leading users towards the most favorable comments, etc.
In order to avoid potential legal liability, platforms in a country without Section 230 would preemptively remove more speech. Inevitably, more controversial political, cultural, or scientific discussions could be shut down faster. Despite being sold as a remedy to censorship and cancel culture, repealing Section 230 would pour fuel on the fire.
Big Tech can afford the overhead needed to navigate these murky waters. More government scrutiny, compliance costs and lawsuits means only the wealthiest, established companies will survive. In the meantime, lobbyists would likely beg for government-set content moderation rules — turning speech regulation into a bureaucratic mess of regulatory capture.
Small businesses and alternative platforms would be crushed, with entrepreneurs and political dissidents facing an uphill battle against trial lawyers, entrenched bureaucrats and woke activists. Only tech giants can afford the legal liability without Section 230, while new competitors would see immense barriers to entry. As a result, fewer innovations and fresh alternatives like Bluesky or MeWe will emerge.
Everyday users of the Internet, from pet owners looking for the best dog sitter on Rover to angry political trolls on X, would see their access to free and open discussion shrink. Various groups with niche interests and viewpoints would see their digital communities (many operated by volunteers on donations/self-funding) shuttered. Everything from avid cross stitchers and roller coaster enthusiasts to proud firearms owners and devout Baptists will be on the line.
Reform is possible — but gutting Section 230 would make the internet worse for everyone.
Targeted reforms to modern tech concerns, from market competitiveness to misuse, can be enacted without gutting Section 230. This has already begun. A Florida Congresswoman has introduced legislation to combat harmful deep fakes; meanwhile the Trump administration is working to cut the regulatory red tape hindering new business growth. In tandem, efforts to collaborate with tech companies—providing them with tools and information needed to oversee their own platforms—can address legitimate concerns while preserving both limited government and a free, competitive market.
Gut Section 230, and it won’t be Silicon Valley that suffers — it’ll be everyone else. The more legal risk platforms face, the more power accrues to those who can afford it. Smaller sites, startups, and niche communities won’t stand a chance. Section 230 remains a safeguard for competition, innovation, and free speech. Those frustrated with Big Tech should be careful not to undermine the very freedoms making alternative platforms and diverse viewpoints online possible.
About the Author: Sam Raus
Sam Raus is a recent graduate of the University of Miami and a Tech and Consumer Freedom Fellow with Young Voices. His commentary has appeared in RealClearDefense, The Daily Caller, Free The People, the Standard-Examiner, and the South Jersey Times. Follow him on Twitter: @SamRaus1.
Image: Shutterstock
