Congress
With Google and Facebook Under Fire, Section 230 is at a Tipping Point as More Push for Changes

WASHINGTON, June 12, 2019 – New critics of Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act seem to emerge every day on both the political right and the left.
The law states that “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.”
These 26 words are widely credited with creating the free-wheeling internet of today. It did this by shielding internet social media “publishers” – otherwise known as internet “platforms” – from liability for the content created by their users.
On Tuesday, conservative firebrand Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., became the latest on the right to fire at Section 230. At a hearing on Google and Facebook’s impact on journalism, Gaetz floated the possibility of removing or altering the Section 230 protections upon which the technology industry has come to rely.
He also imputed a kind of “fairness” or neutrality standard to which internet platforms must purportedly subscribe if they wish to retain the benefits from liability provided by Section 230.
From the left, Reed Hundt criticizes Section 230 protections as ‘naïve’
But it isn’t just conservatives gunning for Section 230: So are progressives, including Reed Hundt, the author of a recent book critical of what he calls Barack Obama’s “neoliberal” handling of the great recession.
Speaking about his book “A Crisis Wasted: Barack Obama’s Defining Decisions” at a Friday forum hosted by The Capitol Forum, Hundt concurred with some – on the left and on the right – who want to break up Facebook.
Hundt, the first chairman of the Federal Communications Commission under President Bill Clinton, said that he was “wrong” not to oppose Section 230 when it was introduced as part of the Communications Decency Act that passed in 1996.
Hundt contrasted the libel standard that governs traditional publishers like The New York Times. The landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision New York Times Co. v. Sullivan held that newspapers needed to have made a false statement with knowledge or reckless disregard of the truth to be guilty of libel.
It is that standard to which The New York Times is held when it decides to publish “user-generated content” like a letter to the editor. By contrast, Facebook takes much less care in its treatment of content posted by users on its site.
As a result, Facebook and other social media networks permit far more violence and hatred on their web sites than a traditional publisher like The Times would ever countenance on its web site.
Hundt said that the laissez-faire approach of the 1990s, including Section 230, was built around the presumption that “people are good.” Of the time, he now says, “we were very naïve.”
Section 230 took an alternative approach to incentivize online decency
Section 230 was drafted as part of the Communications Decency Act included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. CDA barred “indecent” material online. It was struck down as unconstitutional in 1997 by the Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLU.
But Section 230 has remained the law of the land. And courts have read its provision to be quite broad in exempting technology companies from liability.
The provisions of Section 230 had originally been proposed as an alternative remedy to an outright ban of indecent content. Indeed, it gave an “interactive computer service(s)” protection for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
Today, with greater scrutiny on the market power and elements of toxic speech emanating from social media, Section 230 is under much greater fire from political and social leaders. And yet courts keep making it difficult to limit its scope and reach.
Courts can’t help themselves in broadly viewing Section 230, so prosecutors want legislative changes
On Friday, for example, the D.C. Court of Appeals cited Section 230 in holding that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo aren’t liable for hosting content posted by known scammers. A group of locksmiths had sued the platforms, claiming that the platforms were effectively engaging in a racket to incentivize legitimate locksmiths to buy ads in order to drive scammers lower on search results.
And that’s probably why state attorneys general are also not letting up in their criticism of Section 230. Last month, 47 of 50 attorneys general joined a letter of the National Association of Attorneys General supporting legislative changes to the law. They say (PDF) that Section 230 precludes state and local authorities from enforcing laws against “sex trafficking and crimes against children.”
The attorneys general continue:
- “We sadly note that the abuse on these platforms does not stop at sex trafficking. Stories of online black market opioid sales, ID theft, deep fakes, election meddling, and foreign intrusion are now ubiquitous, and these growing phenomena will undoubtedly serve as the subjects of hearings throughout the 116th Congress. Current precedent interpreting the CDA, however, continues to preclude states and territories from enforcing their criminal laws against companies that, while not actually performing these unlawful activities, provide platforms that make these activities possible. Worse, the extensive safe harbor conferred to these platforms by courts promotes an online environment where these pursuits remain attractive and profitable to all involved, including the platforms that facilitate them.”
The attorneys general also urged Congress to amend Section 230 in 2013 and 2017. Congress took them up on their request, for the first time, when it made a change in 2018 with the passage of the “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act” and “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act” (known as FOSTA-SESTA). Passed last year, the measure provides that Section 230 immunity does not apply against enforcement of federal or state sex trafficking laws.
Will changes to Section 230 help big social media companies at the expense of competition?
Some populist Republicans are treating Section 230 as if it were an all-purpose punching bag to go after technology companies and internet platforms.
At a May policy forum flaying Facebook, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, said that Section 230 is “predicated on [platforms] providing open, fair and free platforms. If they are not going to do that, but insert their own political biases, then they start to look a lot more like a newspaper, or TV station, but don’t qualify for Section 230.”
At the same time, Hawley took a nuanced view about the possible effects that changes to Section 230 might have on startup companies attempting to compete against giants like Facebook and Google. “We need to make sure that [changes to Section 230 are] not a benefit to incumbency.”
Dan Huff, counsel to former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said at the event that Congress should be more bold in exercising power. The House should use the threat of revising Section 230 as a weapon. This could force Google and Facebook to let the public know how their algorithms highlight particular search results or promote certain items within a user’s social news feed.
Congress should say to these companies: “Unless your make public the grounds on which you keep content off your platform,” we are going to eliminate or drastically scale back Section 230 protections, said Huff.
(Photo of former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, speaking at The Capitol Forum on Friday, by Drew Clark.)
Congress
New Congress Faces Key Decisions About Broadband Funding, Infrastructure Priorities and Privacy Law
Broadband access and privacy policies present opportunities for bipartisan collaboration, Broadband Breakfast panelists agreed.

WASHINGTON, February 9, 2023 — The 118th Congress will have critical opportunities to impact technology policy by reforming the Universal Service Fund, guiding infrastructure priorities and passing federal privacy legislation, said industry experts at a Broadband Breakfast Live Online event last week
Broadband policies present a promising opportunity for bipartisan collaboration, said Marissa Mitrovich, vice president of public policy for the Fiber Broadband Association. “These are the issues that impact every single American, and they’re not a partisan issue — everyone needs access to affordable, reliable broadband.”
The most significant upcoming development to the national connectivity landscape will likely be the infusion of funding from the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment Program, expected to be allocated to the states by June 30. Many state entities have raised concerns about the national broadband map that will determine BEAD distribution, with several claiming they lacked the necessary time and resources to adequately challenge the map’s inaccuracies.
“The challenge process is important, but keep in perspective that this first go-around is really for state allocations — it is not the round that will really then determine where it is that’s unserved and underserved,” said Shirley Bloomfield, CEO of NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association.
Bloomfield also cautioned against becoming overly distracted by the “shiny new toy” of federal funding, noting the importance of reforming existing programs to ensure that new networks being built can be sustained and will remain affordable.
“If at the end of the day consumers can’t access and afford those networks, I’m not sure how far we’ve moved the ball forward,” she said.
One key program in need of reform is the Universal Service Fund, a multi-billion-dollar fund that subsidizes basic telecommunications services for low-income households and rural communities. The USF will likely run out of money during 2024, with some even predicting that this will happen during the first quarter of the year, said Grant Spellmeyer, president and CEO of ACA Connects.

Panelists at the Broadband Breakfast Live Online session on February 1, 2023.
“That means that we’re 12 months away from a real problem…There are 16 million households, 55 million Americans relying on that program right now,” Spellmeyer added.
With the future of the program — and the connectivity it provides to millions of people — in jeopardy, Congress may have the chance to play a crucial role in extending the program, Bloomfield said. “All Americans, regardless of where they live, should have access to comparable and affordable services.”
Industry experts disagree over whether fiber should be prioritized
The BEAD program’s prioritization of fiber over other broadband technologies has drawn both praise and criticism. Proponents tout fiber’s superior speeds and longevity, while others argue that emerging technologies should be given a chance to develop.
In November, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration — the Commerce Department agency responsible for administering the BEAD program — came under fire for its stated preference for fiber, which a group of Republican senators said was in “stark contrast to Congress’s tech-neutral intent.”
“Tech neutrality is critical… There are benefits of fiber, fixed wireless, satellite and traditional mobile,” said David Grossman, vice president of regulatory affairs for the Consumer Technology Association, at the Broadband Breakfast event.
“It’s going to take every tool,” Bloomfield agreed, noting that the best technology for any given area would depend on a broad range of factors. However, she emphasized the benefits of deploying fiber when possible. “We have this opportunity, and frankly, shame on us if we don’t actually put in future-proof technology the first time around.”
Fiber infrastructure will also support the rapidly growing demand for symmetrical gigabit speeds, Bloomfield added.
Spellmeyer pointed to a new ACA Connects study making state-by-state predictions for BEAD funding allocation and outlining two national deployment scenarios: a “baseline fiber” approach and a “maximum fiber” approach.
“It’ll be up to governors to decide how they want to approach the allocation of funding, but I think a whole lot of governors can deliver a whole lot of fiber,” Spellmeyer said. “And then there will be opportunities… in very high-cost areas for wireless to play a role as well.”
Mitrovich strongly supported fiber prioritization, noting that “what might be a little bit more investment on the front end is going to really save money in the long run — and create opportunity, whether it’s through jobs, access to healthcare, access to education.”
“We believe fiber is really the most important connectivity technology for consumers and how we’re going to connect America — and the only way this happens is if government and industry work together,” Mitrovich said.
Bipartisan privacy legislation may still have a chance
Although many policy proposals may struggle to gain traction in a politically divided Congress, Grossman was optimistic about the prospect of bipartisan privacy legislation.
“It’s something everybody can relate to, both sides of the aisle, and I think that that was reflected in the fact that we got to a ‘three corners’ bill last year,” he said, referring to the bipartisan House support and Republican Senate support garnered by the American Data Privacy and Protection Act toward the end of 2022.
The primary hurdle that stalled the ADPPA’s passage was its preemption provision, which was fiercely opposed by lawmakers from states with strong preexisting privacy legislation.
Tech associations and industry groups have been generally supportive of state preemption. “It’s very clear that a patchwork of 50 state laws is not workable — it’s burdensome, particularly for startups, [and] confusing for consumers,” Grossman said.
Bloomfield agreed, emphasizing the importance of “a national standard and uniform approach that really treats all online data consistently… so consumers know what their expectations are.”
Another contentious privacy debate at the heart of the ADPPA is whether individuals should be able to sue companies for infractions. The bill’s final version included a narrow private right of action — the product of significant bipartisan compromise.
However, Grossman rejected this agreement, arguing that “private right of action is hugely, hugely detrimental to the industry and to innovation.”
Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. Watch the event on Broadband Breakfast, or REGISTER HERE to join the conversation.
Wednesday, February 1, 2023, 12 Noon ET – What Will the 118th Congress Do on Broadband and Big Tech?
Hampered by a new partisan divide, what will the 118th Congress be able to accomplish in terms of broadband and technology policy? In particular, what do broadband and technology industry groups see as realistic policy priorities under divided government? Many members of Congress want to sharply curb the power of Big Tech, including through a potential national TikTok ban. Another issue left unresolved from last Congress was the state of information privacy legislation. These developments take place against a backdrop of the largest federal investment in broadband ever. Will Congress have anything new to say about infrastructure investment, wireless communication or network neutrality?
Panelists:
- Shirley Bloomfield, CEO, NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association
- Grant Spellmeyer, President & CEO, ACA Connects
- Marissa Mitrovich, Vice President of Public Policy, Fiber Broadband Association
- David Grossman, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Consumer Technology Association
- Drew Clark (moderator), Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast
Panelist resources
- Rural Broadband Providers Increasing Speeds on Fiber Networks, Annual NTCA Report Finds, NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association, December 5, 2022
Shirley Bloomfield is CEO of NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association, the premier association representing nearly 850 independent telecommunications companies that are leading innovation in rural and small-town America. With more than 30 years of experience representing the country’s smallest telecom operators, Bloomfield is an expert on the role of federal communications policies in sustaining the vitality of rural and remote communities and the benefits rural broadband networks bring to millions of American families, businesses and the national economy. Bloomfield has a strong track record of leadership in aligning strategic partnerships among rural telecom companies, their larger counterparts, other rural utilities and federal agencies, advancing digital equity and economic opportunities for rural Americans.
Grant Spellmeyer oversees the daily operations and affairs of ACA Connects-America’s Communications Association, a 700-member, non-profit advocacy association dedicated to serving smaller- and medium-sized, independent broadband, phone and video businesses that serve more than 10 million broadband customers nationwide. ACA Connects represents its Members and advocates their concerns before Congress, the Federal Communications Commission, and other agencies in Washington, D.C. Prior to joining ACAC, Grant was vice president of government affairs for US Cellular where his primary duties included directing the federal and state legislative and regulatory efforts across the company’s 21-state operating territory on all policy matters.
Marissa Mitrovich is the Fiber Broadband Association’s vice president of public policy, leading their efforts before Congress, the White House and regulatory agencies in Washington, D.C. She brings more than two decades of experience in governmental affairs and telecom, including previous roles as the vice president of federal legislative affairs for Frontier and vice president of public policy for Verizon, where she interfaced with the administration and worked on state government affairs issues and corporate responsibility initiatives. Mitrovich also brings experience in workforce development and public-private partnerships from her time as vice president of program development for the Wireless Infrastructure Association.
David Grossman serves as vice president of regulatory affairs for the Consumer Technology Association, where he is responsible for representing the association before the FCC, FTC and other government agencies, with a focus on broadband, spectrum policy, cybersecurity and online competition. David spent nearly a decade in public service, including serving as Chief of Staff to FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, Legislative Director and Senior Advisor for Technology Policy to Rep. Anna Eshoo of Silicon Valley, and as Technology Counsel to the U.S. House Small Business Committee under the leadership of Rep. Nydia Velázquez.
Drew Clark (moderator) is CEO of Breakfast Media LLC. He has led the Broadband Breakfast community since 2008. An early proponent of better broadband, better lives, he initially founded the Broadband Census crowdsourcing campaign for broadband data. As Editor and Publisher, Clark presides over the leading media company advocating for higher-capacity internet everywhere through topical, timely and intelligent coverage. Clark also served as head of the Partnership for a Connected Illinois, a state broadband initiative.
Graphic courtesy of Digital Trends Media Group
As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.
SUBSCRIBE to the Broadband Breakfast YouTube channel. That way, you will be notified when events go live. Watch on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.
See a complete list of upcoming and past Broadband Breakfast Live Online events.
China
New Leadership and Priorities for Republican-Led Energy and Commerce Committee
The new chair renamed three subcommittees, hinting at the GOP’s goals for the coming term.

WASHINGTON, January 27, 2023 — Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., recently named chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, announced on Wednesday the new Republican leadership and membership of each subcommittee, giving insight into which members of Congress will be at the forefront of key technology decisions over the coming term.
McMorris Rodgers also announced changes to the committee’s structure, renaming three subcommittees and shifting some of their responsibilities. The changes aim to “ensure our work tackles the greatest challenges and most important priorities of the day, including lowering energy costs, beating China and building a more secure future,” McMorris Rodgers told Fox News.
Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., D-N.J. — now the committee’s ranking member after serving as chair for the past four years — announced on Friday each subcommittee’s Democratic membership and leadership, and named Rep. Kim Schrier, D-Wash., as the vice ranking member for the full committee.
Rep. Kelly Armstrong, R-N.D., who will serve as the committee’s vice chair, is a vocal critic of Big Tech. In 2021, he was one of several Republicans who championed major reforms to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The committee’s new names hint at some of the ways that the committee’s priorities may shift as Republicans take control. The former Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee is now titled the Innovation, Data and Commerce Subcommittee and will be chaired by Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., alongside Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.
Bilirakis and McMorris Rodgers have already announced the subcommittee’s first hearing, which will focus on U.S. global technology leadership and competition with China.
The Communications and Technology Subcommittee, now led by Chair Bob Latta, R-Ohio, and Ranking Member Doris Matsui, D-Calif., also emphasized competition with China in the announcement of a hearing on the global satellite industry.
Latta has previously spoken out against the total repeal of Section 230, but he has also expressed concerns about the extent to which it protects tech companies. In an April 2021 op-ed written jointly with Bilirakis, Latta accused social media platforms of engaging in “poisonous practices… that drive depression, isolation and suicide.”
The Environment, Manufacturing and Critical Minerals Subcommittee, formerly known as the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee, will be led by Chair Bill Johnson, R-Ohio and Ranking Member Paul Tonko, D-N.Y.
The Energy Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee, formerly known as the Energy Subcommittee, will be led by Chair Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., and Ranking Member Diana DeGette, D-Colo.
The Health Subcommittee will be led by Chair Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., and Ranking Member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee will be led by Chair Morgan Griffith, R-Va., and Ranking Member Kathy Castor, D-Fla.
Digital Inclusion
CES 2023: Congressional Oversight, Digital Equity Priorities for New Mexico Senator
Sen. Lujan once again voiced concern that the FCC’s national broadband map contains major inaccuracies.

LAS VEGAS, January 6, 2023 – Sen. Ben Ray Lujan on Friday endorsed “oversight at every level” of executive agencies’ broadband policies and decried service providers that perpetuate digital inequities.
Lujan appeared before an audience at the Consumer Electronics Show with Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., and Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., to preview the tech-policy priorities of the 118th Congress.
Among Washington legislators, Senators had CES 2023 to themselves: Representatives from the House of Representatives were stuck in Washington participating on Friday in the 12th, 13th and 14th votes for House Speaker.
Congress allocated $65 billion to broadband projects in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, the bulk of which, housed in the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program, is yet to be disbursed. The IIJA funds are primarily for infrastructure, but billions are also available for digital equity and affordability projects.
Several federal legislators, including Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., have called for close supervision of Washington’s multitude of broadband-related programs. At CES on Friday, Warner argued that previous tranches of broadband funding have been poorly administered, and Lujan once again voiced concern that the Federal Communications Commission’s national broadband map, whose data will be used to allocate BEAD funds, contains major inaccuracies.
Affordable, high-speed broadband is now a necessity, stated Warner. Lujan argued that policy must crafted to ensure all communities have access to connectivity.
“The [Federal Communications Commission] is working on some of the digital equity definitions right now…. I don’t want to see definitions that create loopholes that people can hide behind to not connect communities,” the New Mexico senator said, emphasizing the importance of “the digital literacy to be able take advantage of what this new connection means, so that people can take advantage of what I saw today [at CES].”
At a Senate hearing in December, Lujan grilled executives from industry trade associations over allegations of digital discrimination.
-
Fiber3 weeks ago
‘Not a Great Product’: AT&T Not Looking to Invest Heavily in Fixed Wireless
-
Broadband Roundup2 weeks ago
AT&T Floats BEAD in USF Areas, Counties Concerned About FCC Map, Alabama’s $25M for Broadband
-
Big Tech3 weeks ago
House Innovation, Data, and Commerce Chairman Gus Bilirakis to Keynote Big Tech & Speech Summit
-
Big Tech2 weeks ago
Watch the Webinar of Big Tech & Speech Summit for $9 and Receive Our Breakfast Club Report
-
Big Tech2 weeks ago
Preview the Start of Broadband Breakfast’s Big Tech & Speech Summit
-
#broadbandlive2 weeks ago
Broadband Breakfast on March 8: A Status Update on Tribal Broadband
-
WISP4 weeks ago
Starry Group Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
-
Broadband's Impact4 weeks ago
Community Engagement is Key to BEAD Grant Planning Process, Experts Say