Josh Hawley’s plan to regulate Big Tech companies has finally taken form.
The Missouri senator just introduced the “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act,” which would modify section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in an attempt to deal with alleged conservative bias by social media companies. Section 230 was originally put in place to provide legal protections to online intermediaries that host speech from third parties, such as Facebook and YouTube, so they aren’t held liable for content users post on their platforms. It also allows these companies to moderate their content.
Hawley’s modification would require companies that host either 30 million active monthly users in the United States, 300 million users globally, or more than $500 million in global annual revenue to engage in “politically unbiased content moderation.” The companies would lose their Section 230 protection unless the Federal Trade Commission certified that they “do not moderate information provided by other information content providers in a manner that is biased against a political party, political candidate or political viewpoint.” They would have to receive this certification every two years.
Putting aside whether any company, big or small, could possibly comply with this standard while still having a functioning website, the ongoing conversation about conservative bias in tech ignores the facts that conservative speech has flourished thanks to technology.
The internet, and the platforms which populate it, have been a boon to conservative speech. Conservative comedian Steven Crowder, who recently attracted controversy by being demonetized by YouTube, has attained over four million subscribers to his channel. PragerU, another conservative channel that has claimed censorship over the demonetization of its videos, sits at more than two million. Ironically, their video entitled “Who Will Google Silence Next” has more than seven million views — on YouTube, a Google-owned platform.
Even President Trump recently tweeted,“Thank goodness we can fight back on Social Media.” And interestingly, the most frequently shared stories on Facebook aren’t coming from traditional left-leaning outlets like the New York Times or the Washington Post. In fact, that honor goes to Fox News. The proliferation of these types and variety of conservative voices across the nation would have been unbelievable a mere 20 to 30 years ago.
One can link the rise of conservative content directly to deregulation and new technologies. The end of the Fairness Doctrine started the trend, with trailblazing talk radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh leading the way. Cable television allowed Fox News to stake its claim at the conservative television outlet. Likewise, the mainstream adoption of the internet has led to a further explosion of conservative voices onto the scene.
After all, now anyone can purchase a domain, set up a website, and share their thoughts with the world in a way that traditional media never allowed. The internet can also provide a ready-made audience, with platforms such as YouTube and Twitter offering creators millions of viewers.
Despite the many valid concerns existing over the current gatekeepers of the internet and their terms of service, they pale in comparison to the hurdles conservative voices faced before the internet. Does anyone believe someone like Crowder would have been given his own television or radio show decades ago? Nowadays, largely thanks to social media, conservative commentators are able to make a living due to the direct financial support and online retail sales from fans.
This is not to say that there aren’t legitimate discussions to be had over tech companies’ terms of service for using their platforms, or how those terms of service are enforced. But the idea that the internet as it currently exists has led to a censoring of conservative voices bears little resemblance to reality, a few high-profile examples aside.
So, it’s puzzling to see the rise in recent calls for more stringent regulation of the internet. By any measure, our current framework has provided record-high access to conservative content. Why get the government involved now? If history is any guide, policies enacted to ensure “fairness” or “neutrality” in the media landscape will only hurt conservatives in the long run.
Eric Peterson is the director of policy at the Pelican Institute for Public Policy.
