The attacks on Section 230 are coming thick and fast.

At a Senate hearing this month, Lindsay Graham urged Congress to pass a Section

230 sunset bill.

Incoming FTC chairman, Andrew Ferguson, says we need Section 230 reform.

Incoming FCC Chairman Brendan Carr skips the reform step by simply reading the law in a way that would practically nullify it.

Julia Anglin, writing in the New York Times.

Andy Kessler writing in the Wall Street Journal.

Jaron Lanier and Alison Stanger writing for Wired.

All of these prominent writers said this year, in their varying ways, that Section 230 is the problem and that it needs to be gutted or destroyed. I'm aware of at least one Section 230 hit piece

in the works as of this recording at another major publication. State and federal trial courts have been slowly chipping away at Section 230's protections.

Professor Eric Goldman wrote about this recently in an article with the evocative title,

Five Decisions illustrate how Section 230 is fading fast. But above all, there is the Third Circuit's

decision last August in Anderson versus TikTok. Anderson holds that algorithmic recommendations

aren't protected by Section 230. Anderson is very nearly a de facto repeal of Section 230 by way of judicial activism.

Welcome to another edition of the Tech Policy Podcast from the Vault.

I'm Corbyn Barthold. Today's episode remains as essential now as it was when

we first recorded it. On October 31st, 2022, Emma Lanzo, then of the Center for Democracy

and Technology, explained why Section 230 matters.

She and I covered Section 230's history, its value to the Internet, in some of the many ways it is

misunderstood. Then as now, people take a lot of cheap shots at Section 230, and we try to do our small part to set

the record straight.

Late in our discussion, Emma and I turned to a case that was at the time still pending

...