Civil Liberty Groups Argue Both For and Against Aspects of Section 230
A few groups submitted briefs that weren’t explicitly supporting one side of the debate. The Anti-Defamation League argued that while 230 isn’t explicitly bad by itself, the courts have allowed sites to shield themselves from accountability for amplifying hate. Further the ADL suggested that sites have been so focused on making sure users keep clicking and scrolling with algorithm-based content, they have “actively pulled users toward extremism and hate.” The anti-hate organization argued these sites have not done enough to fight extremism because they are shielded by 230.
Still, organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, alongside a few other internet-focused civil liberty groups, argued that narrowing the function of 230 would lead to more online “censorship.”
Similar to what Google said in its response brief, the EFF claimed doing away with 230 would create an “artificially stunted” online environment, making a “sanitized, bland, homogenous online experience.” This could also greatly harm all kinds of user generated content, as “a content creator or original poster may be able to see the content they uploaded, but online platforms would prevent other users from knowing where to find it or how to share it.
