Section 230 Has Coddled Big Tech For Too Long, Says Co-Author of Book on Amazon
Co-author of “The Amazon Jungle” says Section 230 has allowed Big Tech to get away with far too much.
Derek Shumway
May 11, 2021 – The internet liability provision Section 230 has allegedly given Amazon the ability to allow unvetted products on its platform, which has boosted its business at the expense of customers, an Amazon critic is claiming.
Jason Boyce is the co-author of the book “The Amazon Jungle: The Truth About Amazon, The Seller’s Survival Guide for Thriving on the World’s Most Perilous E-Commerce Marketplace,” that dives into the size of Amazon and its alleged privacy issues.
“Amazon is protected by Section 230” and not in a good way, Boyce said in an interview with Broadband Breakfast.
“These White entitled hoodie wearing billionaires aren’t going to do the right thing for the U.S. citizens,” said Jason Boyce, co-author with Rick Cesari of the book. It attempts to explain just how big the company really is and the privacy issues it poses.
In an interview with Broadband Breakfast, Boyce discussed how and why it needs to be held accountable for its alleged dominance in ecommerce and other markets is vying to own.
Boyce singled out CEOs of other big tech companies, calling Mark Zuckerberg “poison,” and the “bearded wonder,” referring to Jack Dorsey at Twitter. Not even Jeff Bezos’ blazer exempts him from his responsibility, he said.
“These white entitled hoodie wearing billionaires aren’t going to do the right thing for the U.S. citizens,” he said. Boyce said that these “libertarian” idols are no longer trustworthy in part due to their lack of respect for intellectual property and privacy invasion with no means of remuneration to the consumer.
Amazon was contacted multiple times for comment on this interview before publication, and while it said a response would be given, the company did not follow-up.
Amazon’s role in the Section 230 debate
Section 230 from the Communications Decency Act of 1996 says 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.”
In other words, online intermediaries are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do—which can extend to the sale of products from third parties in Amazon’s case.
If a third party from a factory in China decides to sell a retractable dog leash on Amazon, Amazon is not responsible for the safety of that Chinese-based retractable leash. If the leash snaps and takes an eye out, the consumer who bought it cannot sue Amazon since it is protected by Section 230. Unfortunately, this has already happened.
Heather Oberdorf, a Pennsylvania woman, bought an $18.48 retractable leash from a Chinese company selling on Amazon. One day while walking her dog, the leash suddenly snapped and sprang back, hitting her left eye and resulted in partial blindness.
MarketWatch reported on this story and said that “Amazon contended that Oberdorf could not hold it liable for posting [the retractable leash] because a section of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) shields companies from liability for publishing what third parties say on their sites.”
The Chinese factory that produced the leash will also be free from legal responsibility as “no U.S. citizen is going to have any success suing a factory in China,” as there is no incentive to offer the sale of safe products to consumers on Amazon, said Boyce.
Waiving rights to sue
When signing up for an Amazon account, all rights to sue the company, even if a third party’s product use results in serious harm, is waived upon account creation. Amazon should be required to force its third party sellers to publish safety information about their products so consumers can be informed.
Amazon is a once-in-a-generation company that was won ecommerce, offering half a billion items online, while the biggest Walmart store can only stock 500,000 items, said Boyce. He raised alarm over Amazon’s dominance in the book industry and its Amazon Web Services, calling them monopolies that at the present time, prevent the “next Amazon” from being born.
Boyce cited the historical case of Microsoft, where it was sued by the U.S. government for “tying,” since it prevented other browsers from existing, among other things. The government was successful in breaking up Microsoft in one of the largest anti-trust cases, which allowed Google to be born under the “do no evil” mantra.
