The internet as we know it today is under threat, and one law in particular is being blamed for all its ills: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Co-authored by Ron Wyden and Rep. Chris Cox in 1996, this provision has been a cornerstone of internet speech, but its critics argue that it has let major tech platforms moderate too much or too little. However, Wyden is convinced that the law is just as necessary today as it was when it was first written.

Section 230 has been under fire from politicians on both sides of the aisle, including President Donald Trump, who has attacked the law and sought to reinterpret it to suit his administration's agenda. Tech giants, too, have been accused of using the law to their advantage, moderating content in a way that benefits their bottom line rather than promoting free speech. But Wyden argues that these criticisms are misplaced, and that Section 230 is essential for protecting internet users' rights and promoting innovation.

Wyden and Cox wrote Section 230 in response to the Communications Decency Act, a bill proposed by Senator James Exon that would have banned "obscene, indecent, and destructive" content from the internet. The CDA would have strangled the internet in its cradle, Wyden argues, and would have created a vast, new, intrusive, and ultimately ineffective government bureaucracy. Instead, Wyden and Cox proposed a liability shield that blended conservative and liberal concepts, sidestepping Big Government and promoting parental control over children's internet consumption, while also blocking government censorship of speech and protecting user privacy.

The 26 words of Section 230 were written to address the same challenges we face today: keeping kids safe online, leveling the playing field between entrenched corporate interests and small innovators, and ensuring that individuals – not the government – are accountable for the content they create online. Without Section 230, potential competitors to the major tech platforms would stand little chance of getting off the ground, and users would be left with no alternatives to the government-favored Big Tech cartel.

The example of Bluesky, a social media platform that has gained millions of users in just a few months, illustrates the importance of Section 230. Without the law, anyone aggrieved by a decision from Bluesky's moderation team could initiate a devastating lawsuit, smothering the platform in legal fees even if it won. This would stifle innovation and limit users' choices, Wyden argues.

In conclusion, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act remains crucial for protecting internet freedom and promoting innovation. Despite criticism from politicians and tech giants, Wyden is convinced that the law is essential for ensuring that the internet remains a vibrant, open, and democratic platform for all users. As the internet continues to evolve, it is more important than ever that we preserve the principles of freedom and responsibility that underpin it.