(From left to right) Cornell professor Tracy Mitrano, R-Street Institute fellow Shoshana Weismann, and Cornell Republicans president Avery Bower participated in an event on Section 230.
On March 28, R-Street Institute fellow Shoshana Weissmann and Cornell infosci professor Tracy Mitrano spoke to the Cornell Republicans.
Weissmann is a fellow and the director of digital media at the R-Street Institute, a libertarian think tank, doing work on §230 of the Communications Decency Act, social media regulation, and occupational licensing reform. She is also a member of the Regulatory Transparency Project’s state and local working group at the Federalist Society and serves on the board of The Conservation Coalition. Additionally, Weissmann runs a sloth conservancy nonprofit.
Professor Mitrano Law ‘95 is a distinguished visiting professor of information science. From 2001-2014, she served as the Director of Information Technology Policy at Cornell. Mitrano also ran for Congress in New York’s 23rd district in 2018 and 2020. Mitrano teaches courses on the intersection of law and information science.
Speaking to an audience assembled in Warren Hall, Cornell Republicans President Avery Bower ‘23, who moderated the discussion, opened the evening by thanking both panelists. Bower said that he hoped the event would shed light on how the “tech sector intersects with the policy world.”
Most of the event focused on Section 230, a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. It ensured that Internet providers and platforms would not be treated as “publishers” of any content posted by other users. Effectively, the provision shields platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, from lawsuits for any content published on their websites.
Weissmann expressed support for Section 230, noting that it allowed the Internet to thrive. She elaborated that the law meant that platforms are not liable for the content posted, adding that the law also allows platforms to moderate as they see fit. She also discussed the Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy case, where the social media platform Prodigy was found to be liable for an anonymous post made on its website.
Mitrano concurred with Weissmann, adding that Section 230 took away any liability platforms had. She noted that if platforms could be held liable for defamatory posts made by their users, the platforms could be sued out of existence. Mitrano repeatedly noted that lawyers will always look for “deep pockets”—companies—to sue instead of individuals.
However, Mitrano suggested two reforms to the legislation. First, she argued that platforms of a certain size ought to have some sort of content moderation policy that they abide by. Second, she added that platforms should provide a complaint system to allow users to alert platforms to a non-consensual disclosure of material and ask for it to be removed.
Towards the end of the event, Bower asked both panelists about the release of the “Twitter Files” and how platforms should approach content moderation. Mitrano noted that, prior to the January 6 riot at the Capitol, former President Trump was given preferential treatment on Twitter. She added that platforms ought to stick to consistently applied content moderation.
Weissmann explained that the Twitter Files showed the excessive role of the government in pressuring platforms. The problem, in her opinion, was government coercion and pressure on platforms, not necessarily the platforms themselves.
This event comes as both political parties have become interested in tech regulation. TikTok CEO Shou Chew was grilled by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers late March over the platform’s data policies.
In a recent Supreme Court case involving Google, U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R.-Texas) and Josh Hawley (R.-Mo.) and the Biden administration all filed briefs arguing that Section 230 does not provide protection for claims regarding recommendation tools employed by a platform.
