What do you think?
Rate this book
The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet
"This book examines the history and future of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides websites extraordinary legal immunity for user-generated content and is responsible for the modern Internet in the United States"--
313 pages, ebook
Published April 1, 2019
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
January 16, 2021
I picked up this book after Donald Trump held hostage the Defense Authorization Bill in exchange for a repeal of Section 230 of the CDA. This is a little known statute with absolutely unbelievable consequence to our modern economy. There is now 25 years of case law that Jeff Kosseff outlines in brilliant form in this book. How can one law simultaneously encourage and promote the #metoo movement, protecting women as they protest against the most powerful men in society; protect the vile, racist, and sexist attitudes of many Americans as those harmful words proliferate to 100,000s of eyeballs; and then somehow be used to protect a sex trafficking website that sold teens into rape and bondage? This is a law unlike any other in the world. The US protects free speech to an extent that no other government ever has in the history of mankind...but to what ends?
Whether you care about COVID, climate change, BLM, or prison reform nothing can get done without the right political support and messaging campaigns. Similarly, good hearted efforts can easily be thwarted by the defamatory speech of others. What are we as a society willing to give up for hyper-speech? The kind that can circulate around the internet, completely unfounded, but shaping the minds of voters and thinkers around the globe? National Security? A few ruined careers? The rape of underage immigrant women? I commend Jeff for provoking a national review of our modern 1st amendment case law. This is a must read for all Americans as we move into the next four years of Biden policies.
Whether you care about COVID, climate change, BLM, or prison reform nothing can get done without the right political support and messaging campaigns. Similarly, good hearted efforts can easily be thwarted by the defamatory speech of others. What are we as a society willing to give up for hyper-speech? The kind that can circulate around the internet, completely unfounded, but shaping the minds of voters and thinkers around the globe? National Security? A few ruined careers? The rape of underage immigrant women? I commend Jeff for provoking a national review of our modern 1st amendment case law. This is a must read for all Americans as we move into the next four years of Biden policies.
May 28, 2020
An excellent legal, cultural, and historical analysis of a single sentence, one which is even more relevant today: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Here we read about the obscenity laws of the 20th century, the early days of the Internet, and thus also the ways and means by which disinformation can be spread.
December 18, 2021
2.5 Sort of an uncomfortable read. Kosseff spends a lot of time defending a law that made companies almost 100% immune to lawsuits about content posted to their sites. He uses legal challenges—all of which are awful defamation cases that ruined lives—to say that the law's existence should be preferred over its absence. He repeats endlessly that without "The Twenty-Six Words" we would not have the internet as we know it today in America. By holding companies liable to things users say on their sites there would countless lawsuits, higher restrictions (which already exist in Europe), companies would lose money, and freedom of speech would be restricted. As a result of these things, hell would freeze over, babies would stop being born, and the world would be just like 1984. His writing is also not the easiest to follow. His pacing of court cases is too long. He will describe the entire cast of a court case and refer to the lawyers and judges by name, instead of saying 'the defence' or 'the judge'.
January 6, 2023
First book of 2023! I thought this was a great book. I’ve always been afraid of texts that treat laws and court cases, but Kosseff has eradicated this fear. The writing was super engaging. The book explains the impetus behind section 230 and convincingly argues that this law is a necessity in ensuring a free and open internet, and even made be believe in American exceptionalism for a few pages. Recommend to all, especially it congress ever does get its act together to implement some necessary reforms.
March 3, 2021
A useful backgrounder on a fundamental piece of law. I wish I'd read it two years earlier.
May 3, 2021
In the first few pages of The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet, Jeff Kosseff introduces this book as “a biography of Section 230.” To Kosseff’s credit, I thought this book was much more than that. More than a history of a weedy quarter-century old statute, this book is a history of the Internet.
Those who pick up this book probably already know a bit about Section 230, but as background, it was passed as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and functions as a sort of “super-First Amendment for online companies” (95), making websites almost entirely immune from third party content. Because it was passed in the Internet’s early days (when only 40 million people worldwide had Internet access), it has shaped the Internet’s growth and the way we as a society view online speech. At a time when American society is looking more critically at tech companies (and potential regulation in this sector), Section 230 has attracted some newfound scrutiny and debate.
Kosseff is an ardent supporter of Section 230. In the book’s introduction, he acknowledges that, as a former corporate attorney who represented online and media platforms (and invoked Section 230 on their behalf), he does “not come to this project as an unbiased observer” (7). Kosseff promotes the idea of "Internet exceptionalism” and argues that the Internet would not be what it is today, nor would U.S. companies (most of which, such as YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, Google, Yahoo, and Amazon, rely to some degree on third-party content) be at its forefront, without Section 230.
Though I didn’t totally agree with Kosseff, it’s an impassioned and well-articulated defense of Section 230, and he equips his readers with a strong understanding of the contours of the debate. I thought the concept of the Moderators’ Dilemma—a term coined by law professor Eric Goldman, and in many ways the genesis for Section 230—was especially interesting. Before Section 230, websites (like booksellers) were liable if they knew, or should have known, that content on their platform was illegal. As a result, any small steps that websites took to moderate content could impart liability, thereby disincentivizing any self-moderation.
Kosseff tries to inject nuance and honesty into his writing, and acknowledges that Section 230 disproportionately hurts society’s most vulnerable and gives a bullhorn to some truly awful voices. I didn’t always find his nuance totally convincing—even when he’s giving an inch, you can sort of tell that he doesn’t think he should really have to give anything at all. And there is a bit of arrogance at times to his writing; he seems to view any judge that has ruled to limit Section 230 as some kind of idiot dinosaur that just doesn’t get the Internet. But for the most part, I thought he tried to be balanced and sincere. And towards the book's end, he takes a tougher view of the statue that I found resonant: "Section 230 is not a birthright for online platforms...If technology companies fail to show how Section 230 continues to benefit the public (and I believe it does), then Section 230 will eventually disappear” (250-1).
Much more could be said about this book, but I think it’s important to note that this book is a lot of fun to read. It’s not a dense technical treatise. Kosseff is a good writer. He’s concise and clear, even when summarizing detailed court rulings. And though most of the book is a case law of Section 230, the people and events that have challenged (and shaped) Section 230 are fascinating. Perhaps because so many of the characters shielded from liability by Section 230 are so awful makes for an entertaining, if frustrating, read. Most of all, I think it’s a credit to the strength of Kosseff’s writing that even though I disagreed with his uncompromising defense of Section 230, I still really enjoyed this book.
Those who pick up this book probably already know a bit about Section 230, but as background, it was passed as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and functions as a sort of “super-First Amendment for online companies” (95), making websites almost entirely immune from third party content. Because it was passed in the Internet’s early days (when only 40 million people worldwide had Internet access), it has shaped the Internet’s growth and the way we as a society view online speech. At a time when American society is looking more critically at tech companies (and potential regulation in this sector), Section 230 has attracted some newfound scrutiny and debate.
Kosseff is an ardent supporter of Section 230. In the book’s introduction, he acknowledges that, as a former corporate attorney who represented online and media platforms (and invoked Section 230 on their behalf), he does “not come to this project as an unbiased observer” (7). Kosseff promotes the idea of "Internet exceptionalism” and argues that the Internet would not be what it is today, nor would U.S. companies (most of which, such as YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, Google, Yahoo, and Amazon, rely to some degree on third-party content) be at its forefront, without Section 230.
Though I didn’t totally agree with Kosseff, it’s an impassioned and well-articulated defense of Section 230, and he equips his readers with a strong understanding of the contours of the debate. I thought the concept of the Moderators’ Dilemma—a term coined by law professor Eric Goldman, and in many ways the genesis for Section 230—was especially interesting. Before Section 230, websites (like booksellers) were liable if they knew, or should have known, that content on their platform was illegal. As a result, any small steps that websites took to moderate content could impart liability, thereby disincentivizing any self-moderation.
Kosseff tries to inject nuance and honesty into his writing, and acknowledges that Section 230 disproportionately hurts society’s most vulnerable and gives a bullhorn to some truly awful voices. I didn’t always find his nuance totally convincing—even when he’s giving an inch, you can sort of tell that he doesn’t think he should really have to give anything at all. And there is a bit of arrogance at times to his writing; he seems to view any judge that has ruled to limit Section 230 as some kind of idiot dinosaur that just doesn’t get the Internet. But for the most part, I thought he tried to be balanced and sincere. And towards the book's end, he takes a tougher view of the statue that I found resonant: "Section 230 is not a birthright for online platforms...If technology companies fail to show how Section 230 continues to benefit the public (and I believe it does), then Section 230 will eventually disappear” (250-1).
Much more could be said about this book, but I think it’s important to note that this book is a lot of fun to read. It’s not a dense technical treatise. Kosseff is a good writer. He’s concise and clear, even when summarizing detailed court rulings. And though most of the book is a case law of Section 230, the people and events that have challenged (and shaped) Section 230 are fascinating. Perhaps because so many of the characters shielded from liability by Section 230 are so awful makes for an entertaining, if frustrating, read. Most of all, I think it’s a credit to the strength of Kosseff’s writing that even though I disagreed with his uncompromising defense of Section 230, I still really enjoyed this book.
June 27, 2022
This was an incredibly helpful book in terms of explaining the origins of Section 230 and the various court cases which have shaped the body of law around it. Unfortunately for the author, it also presents some of the lamest possible arguments for not tinkering with "the 26 words." He often resorts to pearl-clutching, exclaiming that the internet as it exists today would not have happened absent Section 230, seemingly not understanding that some of us don't necessarily think that would have been a bad thing.
The problem Kosseff sees is one of scale: if a "provider of an interactive computer service" were to be "treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider," that provider would not be able to open up their website to the contributions of the general public, because any one of those contributions could be the basis for a lawsuit (e.g. if they were defamatory, fraudulent, or abusive). I see two flaws with this argument:
1. Kosseff and the writers of Section 230 can say "the internet is different from any other medium" until they're blue in the face, but I don't buy it. I see no reason you should be able to say stuff on the internet that you can't say on TV or in a newspaper.
2. Kosseff seems to be saying there's no workable mechanism for addressing all the complaints that might come in about third-party speech on their platforms, but I don't believe him because there's already one in place for dealing with a specific kind of complaint: copyright violations. It's ironic that he mentions both the DMCA and Section 230 as pillars of internet law in the United States, thereby juxtaposing the impossibility of shielding individuals from defamation and fraud on the internet with the sacred obligation to protect Disney's intellectual property rights.
I don't want to pile on (too much). Kosseff makes other arguments in defense of Section 230 that I do find somewhat compelling, like that it opens up avenues of speech that have never existed before, and the entire book is well-researched and compulsively readable. Highly recommended for coverage of the topic.
The problem Kosseff sees is one of scale: if a "provider of an interactive computer service" were to be "treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider," that provider would not be able to open up their website to the contributions of the general public, because any one of those contributions could be the basis for a lawsuit (e.g. if they were defamatory, fraudulent, or abusive). I see two flaws with this argument:
1. Kosseff and the writers of Section 230 can say "the internet is different from any other medium" until they're blue in the face, but I don't buy it. I see no reason you should be able to say stuff on the internet that you can't say on TV or in a newspaper.
2. Kosseff seems to be saying there's no workable mechanism for addressing all the complaints that might come in about third-party speech on their platforms, but I don't believe him because there's already one in place for dealing with a specific kind of complaint: copyright violations. It's ironic that he mentions both the DMCA and Section 230 as pillars of internet law in the United States, thereby juxtaposing the impossibility of shielding individuals from defamation and fraud on the internet with the sacred obligation to protect Disney's intellectual property rights.
I don't want to pile on (too much). Kosseff makes other arguments in defense of Section 230 that I do find somewhat compelling, like that it opens up avenues of speech that have never existed before, and the entire book is well-researched and compulsively readable. Highly recommended for coverage of the topic.
October 2, 2022
Jeff Kosseff presents the major legal cases that led to the passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, along with the cases that have subsequently shaped judicial interpretation of the law. The individual case studies are interesting (even if, in their descriptions of the awful things human beings will do to one another, they tempt you to never spend time on the internet again). But the overall effect starts to feel repetitive, because the cases are strung together with little analysis and less research. Kosseff argues that the internet as we know it would not exist without Section 230, and that is undoubtedly true, but he does not really wrestle with what it might have looked like without Section 230's protections. There are references to Europe's legal framework, and Kosseff argues the American system has been better in the whole, but the only data he points to is the number of American firms on the list of the largest internet companies in the world. Employment and economic growth are certainly societal goods, and should not be discounted when weighing potential changes to internet law in this country, but I wanted more quantification. Knowing how the law came to be is useful, but it cannot tell us whether it should remain what it is, and, there, Kosseff failed.
February 28, 2021
This is an interesting, relatively quick book on the history of Section 230, the law I only learned existed when Trump started railing against it. Kosseff explores case law that affected how publishers and booksellers were (and were not) protected from defamation and obscenity cases under the First Amendment, how these translated into the early days of the internet, and how two Congressmen created a law to immunize web sites from lawsuits brought as a result of third-party postings.
He then explores how this law changed things, enabling social media and user comments, often by focusing on sympathetic victims of vicious lies, sexual violence, and defamation. It's interesting throughout, but the author never cedes ground that the benefits of near-total immunity outweighs the costs of encouraging the publication of the worst types of speech. Nearly every case study ends with a variation of 'I'm sorry for these victims BUT...' In the end, he's okay carving out limits to immunity for websites that facilitate underage prostitution but not revenge pornography, hate speech, or ISIS propaganda. It's a truly strange mix of libertarianism and 'think of the children' pearl-grasping. In general, enjoyed this when I filtered out the author's personal views.
He then explores how this law changed things, enabling social media and user comments, often by focusing on sympathetic victims of vicious lies, sexual violence, and defamation. It's interesting throughout, but the author never cedes ground that the benefits of near-total immunity outweighs the costs of encouraging the publication of the worst types of speech. Nearly every case study ends with a variation of 'I'm sorry for these victims BUT...' In the end, he's okay carving out limits to immunity for websites that facilitate underage prostitution but not revenge pornography, hate speech, or ISIS propaganda. It's a truly strange mix of libertarianism and 'think of the children' pearl-grasping. In general, enjoyed this when I filtered out the author's personal views.
September 19, 2020
An opinionated and very useful primer on the history of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - a law passed by Congress in 1996 that enabled the development of the modern internet by shielding service providers from being sued for the inaccurate, illegal, defamatory, stupid shit they provide as user-generated content. Kosseff summarizes that the law specifies "that companies will not be considered to be the speakers or publishers of third-party content, and they will not lose that protection only because they delete objectionable posts or otherwise exercise good-faith efforts to moderate user content."
The book describes how section 230 has prevented innovative companies like Facebook, Yelp, Uber, and the rest from being smothered by a torrent of denial-of-service-like complaints that content is illegal (or actual lawsuits) that would have made them averse to the risk of facilitating the massive amounts of user-generated content that is the backbone of today's internet. The justification for this broad immunity, as described by one frequently-sued internet provider: “For any website that allows user-generated comments, investigating and verifying every posting would be economically and practically impossible, so the law (at least here in the United States) does not hold website operators responsible for the accuracy of material posted by a user.” You could come to the opposite conclusion that sites that are incapable of policing their content are undesirable and should be held accountable for that deficiency.
I object to the "only" in this sentence from Kossef's conclusion: "The only way to prevent illegal third-party content with any certainty—and avoid being sued out of oblivion—is to turn the Internet into a closed, one-way street that looks more like a broadcaster or newspaper and less like the Internet we know today." The very different path Europe is taking demonstrates that we can, and I hope will, imagine a rebalancing of section 230's prioritization of scale, public exposure, and unfettered expression, to better account for the values of community, privacy, security, and thoughtful communication. The last 10 years have convinced me that the massive scale of the social media giants, enabled by CDA 230, and the data collection and "communication" between users they enable has done more harm than good.
The book describes how section 230 has prevented innovative companies like Facebook, Yelp, Uber, and the rest from being smothered by a torrent of denial-of-service-like complaints that content is illegal (or actual lawsuits) that would have made them averse to the risk of facilitating the massive amounts of user-generated content that is the backbone of today's internet. The justification for this broad immunity, as described by one frequently-sued internet provider: “For any website that allows user-generated comments, investigating and verifying every posting would be economically and practically impossible, so the law (at least here in the United States) does not hold website operators responsible for the accuracy of material posted by a user.” You could come to the opposite conclusion that sites that are incapable of policing their content are undesirable and should be held accountable for that deficiency.
I object to the "only" in this sentence from Kossef's conclusion: "The only way to prevent illegal third-party content with any certainty—and avoid being sued out of oblivion—is to turn the Internet into a closed, one-way street that looks more like a broadcaster or newspaper and less like the Internet we know today." The very different path Europe is taking demonstrates that we can, and I hope will, imagine a rebalancing of section 230's prioritization of scale, public exposure, and unfettered expression, to better account for the values of community, privacy, security, and thoughtful communication. The last 10 years have convinced me that the massive scale of the social media giants, enabled by CDA 230, and the data collection and "communication" between users they enable has done more harm than good.
June 2, 2020
Not sure what I was hoping for when I got this book, but it wasn't what I expected (not necessarily a bad thing). A detailed summary of how federal legal protection was provided to companies' web sites -- protecting them from content posted by others -- and how that created both a surge in internet use and a myriad of so-far unsolved problems. The book may be a little too exhaustive in outlining the relevant cases (all of this ended up in court). I could've used more concise summaries, especially once it became clear where most of this was going. And it clearly highlights the conflict with legal protections for a business, free speech and the serious damage that sometimes visits on people. Victims of false identification, vengeful ex-lovers, hyper critical customers, etc all end up coming away with basically nothing. But without the protections, the internet wouldn't be what it is. That might not be such a bad thing.
March 28, 2023
This "biography of a law" is based on the hundreds of pages and hours of interviews one would expect of a lawyer, but is written as a series of stories rather than a dive into legalese. Kosseff masterfully pulls out the key takeaways and guides the audience through his arguments with clarity and enough restatement to draw out the binding thread.
A law about the internet and free speech has to wrestle with the ugliest sides of humanity, and at times the case descriptions were very painful to read. Kosseff treated these stories with the gravity and sensitivity they required, and did not trivialize the pain behind the suits. He managed to present his opinions solidly without undermining the experience of others, an achievement of both tact and humility.
At times an emotionally difficult read, but never a confusing or boring one. Informative, engaging, and self-aware, a must read for those curious about platform moderation and cyber law.
A law about the internet and free speech has to wrestle with the ugliest sides of humanity, and at times the case descriptions were very painful to read. Kosseff treated these stories with the gravity and sensitivity they required, and did not trivialize the pain behind the suits. He managed to present his opinions solidly without undermining the experience of others, an achievement of both tact and humility.
At times an emotionally difficult read, but never a confusing or boring one. Informative, engaging, and self-aware, a must read for those curious about platform moderation and cyber law.
November 29, 2023
“no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” thus ‘internet exceptionalism’ (American) was created (at least in the U.S.) treating such providers differently print or broadcast companies
Unsurprisingly, when people talk about this section, they never remark about how it had it roots in established case law that dealt with publishers and distributors ( think newsstands as such, or book sellers)
And it is interesting to note how the earliest court case dealing with section 230 interpreted it so that “had Wilkinson (the judge) agreed with Kayser (plaintiffs attorney) that Section 230 merely immunized online services until they received complaints or other notice about third-party content, then the legal landscape for platforms in the United States would look like the laws in much of the western world.”
The EU takes a different approach, while professing free speech puts limitations in place and allows providers to be sued in certain situations, and allows a ‘right to be forgotten’
I’m not so sure I agree with this author’s fanboy embrace of section 230; he applauds the unfettered growth of certain internet platforms, but doesn’t seem to address whether such huge (monopolies?) are a good thing; and I find it troubling that internet trolls can anonymously destroy other people’s lives and yet the ISP - who don’t require the content provider to properly identify themselves- I somehow libel free. And the rise of fake news and unchecked propaganda, furthered by the use of AI, is wreaking havoc on our political landscape. Now that the internet has grown, has matured to some degree, it may be time for some guardrails. Although he does agree that 230 needed to be amended to address online sex trafficking (and while they’re at it, labor trafficking or trafficking in general?)
“Some evil and twisted people use the internet and they take advantage of open communities to harm others. Section 230 did not motivate the people to write defamatory lies, invade privacy or plan crimes. The root causes these harms are greed, mental instability, malice, and other social ills…”. Ugh, the ‘guns don’t kill people’ argument. Anonymity certainly aids and abets the trolls.
I felt at times there was a degree of detail provided that really didn’t add to the discussion of issues in the book, so yeah, filler to pump it up to book length; I did, however, appreciate providing the background and mindsets of the judges involved in the various decisions.
And I thought it curious that the author kept inserting himself into the writing…a lack of objectivity…
“In the process (1995), Wyden earned a reputation as a go-to member of Congress on technology issues - something that he says his teenage children found humorous.”
Unsurprisingly, when people talk about this section, they never remark about how it had it roots in established case law that dealt with publishers and distributors ( think newsstands as such, or book sellers)
And it is interesting to note how the earliest court case dealing with section 230 interpreted it so that “had Wilkinson (the judge) agreed with Kayser (plaintiffs attorney) that Section 230 merely immunized online services until they received complaints or other notice about third-party content, then the legal landscape for platforms in the United States would look like the laws in much of the western world.”
The EU takes a different approach, while professing free speech puts limitations in place and allows providers to be sued in certain situations, and allows a ‘right to be forgotten’
I’m not so sure I agree with this author’s fanboy embrace of section 230; he applauds the unfettered growth of certain internet platforms, but doesn’t seem to address whether such huge (monopolies?) are a good thing; and I find it troubling that internet trolls can anonymously destroy other people’s lives and yet the ISP - who don’t require the content provider to properly identify themselves- I somehow libel free. And the rise of fake news and unchecked propaganda, furthered by the use of AI, is wreaking havoc on our political landscape. Now that the internet has grown, has matured to some degree, it may be time for some guardrails. Although he does agree that 230 needed to be amended to address online sex trafficking (and while they’re at it, labor trafficking or trafficking in general?)
“Some evil and twisted people use the internet and they take advantage of open communities to harm others. Section 230 did not motivate the people to write defamatory lies, invade privacy or plan crimes. The root causes these harms are greed, mental instability, malice, and other social ills…”. Ugh, the ‘guns don’t kill people’ argument. Anonymity certainly aids and abets the trolls.
I felt at times there was a degree of detail provided that really didn’t add to the discussion of issues in the book, so yeah, filler to pump it up to book length; I did, however, appreciate providing the background and mindsets of the judges involved in the various decisions.
And I thought it curious that the author kept inserting himself into the writing…a lack of objectivity…
“In the process (1995), Wyden earned a reputation as a go-to member of Congress on technology issues - something that he says his teenage children found humorous.”
January 4, 2021
The Internet has transformed our lives and upended American commerce. As it functions in the United States, the Internet is likely the greatest platform for free speech in the history of the world. Websites like Facebook and Twitter have changed, for better or worse, how we interact with each other, and digital marketplaces like Amazon, eBay and Spotify have put a remarkably wide range of products and services at our fingertips. None of this, argues Jeff Kosseff, would have been possible without a 26-word clause that was tucked into the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.
Section 230, the 26 words at the heart of Mr. Kosseff’s book, was little noticed when the CDA was passed in 1996. This somewhat obscure clause was overshadowed by the discussion of the full CDA, which was primarily focused on regulating online pornography. It didn’t take long, however, for ecommerce companies to learn and appreciate the significance of the broad immunity that Section 230 gave them against liability claims related to third-party content. Simply stated, without Section 230 the types of third-party content that has become commonplace on Facebook, Twitter, Yelp, and Amazon either wouldn’t exist, or it would be severely restricted. And this third-party content has become the backbone of the modern-day Internet. As Ms. Kosseff observes, most of the top ten websites in the U.S. rely either entirely or significantly on third-party content.
Section 230 was the brainchild of two Congressman, one Republican and one Democrat, who were concerned about the potential for a recent court decision to stifle the free-speech potential of the Internet. In the mid-90s, partisanship in Congress had reached the point that Democrats and Republicans refused to sit at the same tables in the Congressional dining hall, but Chris Cox, a House Republican from California and Ron Wyden, a House Democrat from Oregon, were an exception. Cox would go on to head the SEC under President George W. Bush, and Wyden now serves as the senior Senator from Oregon, but it is their role in developing and championing Section 230 that will likely stand as their most significant contribution to U.S. statesmanship.
Both men were concerned about a court ruling that had been issued in May of 1995 in a case known as Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. In that case, Daniel Porush, the president of the Stratton Oakmont brokerage firm, sued Prodigy, one of the earliest online services, for defamatory information that had been posted about him and Stratton Oakmont by a third-party user on one of Prodigy’s chat forums. Even though Prodigy was little more than a neutral intermediary, they had made marketing claims that they moderated their chat forums. Using this attempt at moderation as its cudgel, the court ruled in favor of Porush and Stratton Oakmont.
Cox and Wyden were concerned about the “chilling effect” this ruling could have on the Internet’s ability to become a functional and open forum for free speech. They felt it was good public policy to encourage companies that operated online forums to moderate their user content, but the Stratton Oakmont decision demonstrated that, unless these companies were able to achieve an arbitrary and unreasonable standard of content moderation, they could be punished for their failures, which offered a perverse incentive for companies to take a completely hands-off approach to user content. The CDA was already working its way through Congress, and they saw an opportunity to insert what would become Section 230 into the legislation.
Surprisingly, Section 230 was drafted and passed with very little input from the tech industry. Companies like Google and Facebook now have an army of lobbyists roaming the corridors of Congress, but the legislation that enabled their business models and made them the companies they are today became law almost entirely through the work of a group of people who wanted nothing more than to allow the Internet to achieve its latent potential as a robust and open forum for the exchange of ideas.
The book is divided into four sections: the creation of Section 230, the rise of Section 230, the gradual erosion of Section 230 and the future of Section 230. The story is mostly told through the court cases that shaped and defined Section 230, and these vignettes make the book seem like a series of interconnected short stories. The author does a good job of making legal principles and issues accessible to a general audience, but he doesn’t have much of a flair for storytelling. The book is informative, but the prose is somewhat dry. Much of this book reads like a law-school textbook.
The author does an outstanding job of remaining neutral about his topic. He admits that he is a fan and advocate of Section 230, but he fully understands and articulates the problems with Section 230. Many companies have used this law to shield them from negligent and egregious behavior. The victims in these lawsuits frequently suffer real and serious damages. Reputations and livelihoods have been ruined, and, in many cases, it is clear the defendants could have done more to prevent these damages. Yet, the broad immunity of Section 230 effectively gives them a get-out-of-jail-free card, and the author doesn’t pull any punches in his criticism of how Section 230 sometimes allows bad things to happen to innocent people.
Ultimately, however, this is a feel-good story. It explains how a bipartisan Congress created legislation that allowed a nascent industry to flourish and provided U.S. citizens with the full benefits of the internet. Jeff Kosseff has written a well-reasoned, informative book that helps us to appreciate how well our system can work when it functions as it should.
Section 230, the 26 words at the heart of Mr. Kosseff’s book, was little noticed when the CDA was passed in 1996. This somewhat obscure clause was overshadowed by the discussion of the full CDA, which was primarily focused on regulating online pornography. It didn’t take long, however, for ecommerce companies to learn and appreciate the significance of the broad immunity that Section 230 gave them against liability claims related to third-party content. Simply stated, without Section 230 the types of third-party content that has become commonplace on Facebook, Twitter, Yelp, and Amazon either wouldn’t exist, or it would be severely restricted. And this third-party content has become the backbone of the modern-day Internet. As Ms. Kosseff observes, most of the top ten websites in the U.S. rely either entirely or significantly on third-party content.
Section 230 was the brainchild of two Congressman, one Republican and one Democrat, who were concerned about the potential for a recent court decision to stifle the free-speech potential of the Internet. In the mid-90s, partisanship in Congress had reached the point that Democrats and Republicans refused to sit at the same tables in the Congressional dining hall, but Chris Cox, a House Republican from California and Ron Wyden, a House Democrat from Oregon, were an exception. Cox would go on to head the SEC under President George W. Bush, and Wyden now serves as the senior Senator from Oregon, but it is their role in developing and championing Section 230 that will likely stand as their most significant contribution to U.S. statesmanship.
Both men were concerned about a court ruling that had been issued in May of 1995 in a case known as Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. In that case, Daniel Porush, the president of the Stratton Oakmont brokerage firm, sued Prodigy, one of the earliest online services, for defamatory information that had been posted about him and Stratton Oakmont by a third-party user on one of Prodigy’s chat forums. Even though Prodigy was little more than a neutral intermediary, they had made marketing claims that they moderated their chat forums. Using this attempt at moderation as its cudgel, the court ruled in favor of Porush and Stratton Oakmont.
Cox and Wyden were concerned about the “chilling effect” this ruling could have on the Internet’s ability to become a functional and open forum for free speech. They felt it was good public policy to encourage companies that operated online forums to moderate their user content, but the Stratton Oakmont decision demonstrated that, unless these companies were able to achieve an arbitrary and unreasonable standard of content moderation, they could be punished for their failures, which offered a perverse incentive for companies to take a completely hands-off approach to user content. The CDA was already working its way through Congress, and they saw an opportunity to insert what would become Section 230 into the legislation.
Surprisingly, Section 230 was drafted and passed with very little input from the tech industry. Companies like Google and Facebook now have an army of lobbyists roaming the corridors of Congress, but the legislation that enabled their business models and made them the companies they are today became law almost entirely through the work of a group of people who wanted nothing more than to allow the Internet to achieve its latent potential as a robust and open forum for the exchange of ideas.
The book is divided into four sections: the creation of Section 230, the rise of Section 230, the gradual erosion of Section 230 and the future of Section 230. The story is mostly told through the court cases that shaped and defined Section 230, and these vignettes make the book seem like a series of interconnected short stories. The author does a good job of making legal principles and issues accessible to a general audience, but he doesn’t have much of a flair for storytelling. The book is informative, but the prose is somewhat dry. Much of this book reads like a law-school textbook.
The author does an outstanding job of remaining neutral about his topic. He admits that he is a fan and advocate of Section 230, but he fully understands and articulates the problems with Section 230. Many companies have used this law to shield them from negligent and egregious behavior. The victims in these lawsuits frequently suffer real and serious damages. Reputations and livelihoods have been ruined, and, in many cases, it is clear the defendants could have done more to prevent these damages. Yet, the broad immunity of Section 230 effectively gives them a get-out-of-jail-free card, and the author doesn’t pull any punches in his criticism of how Section 230 sometimes allows bad things to happen to innocent people.
Ultimately, however, this is a feel-good story. It explains how a bipartisan Congress created legislation that allowed a nascent industry to flourish and provided U.S. citizens with the full benefits of the internet. Jeff Kosseff has written a well-reasoned, informative book that helps us to appreciate how well our system can work when it functions as it should.
February 23, 2022
Does an excellent job of explaining why Section 230 of the CDA is a uniquely American law intended by Congress to shift the burden of moderation to the private sphere to avoid government interference in free expression. The blanket immunity that service providers have enjoyed for two decades allowed real harm to be visited upon vulnerable people. The author does not excuse or trivialize any of these harms ( he testified in support of an exception to 230 that helped shut down Backpage.com and the online personals site on Craigslist). He contrasts Internet exceptionalism here to the European regulatory framework that privileges privacy. The few court victories for plaintiffs suing providers (Roommates.com and Accusearch) are dramatized effectively as is the Barnes promissory estoppel episode from the Ninth Circuit.
January 24, 2021
A must read in current times. If you want to discuss banning Trump from Social Media and the role internet companies play including the evil they cause, this book explains it all. It explains the value the CDA created, but also the price we all pay. It is a little leaning, as Jeff is an adamant fan of the preferential treatment of internet companies above anyone or anything else, while one can certainly have different opinions. While the book explains the road the US takes and draws comparisons to other regions in the world, its conclusion and improvement suggestions left me unsatisfied.
Still, probably the best if not only book on 230(c), the one you have to read anyway.
Still, probably the best if not only book on 230(c), the one you have to read anyway.
March 28, 2021
An interesting, if at times in the legal weeds, account of a law that for better or worse has defined the current state of internet intercourse. The law, known as Section 230, is very much in the news these days, in part for its role in freeing purveyors of the ugliest kind of hate speech, harassment and abuse found on digital media, but also because it created a sheltered space for social networks and many other sites with user content to explode in growth over the last couple of decades. Worth a read for sure, if that policy puzzle's your thing!
January 4, 2022
Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act provides protection for internet-based companies to allow 3rd party content on their sites. Without this piece of legislation, we would not have most of the tools available to us that we use daily for answering questions, exploring topics, finding expertise, and so much more. This book is a must-read for a complete understanding of the legislation's history and how changing the law can radically alter how we experience content on the internet in addition to the impact those changes have on our free speech.
Recommended by Technology Manager Glenn
Recommended by Technology Manager Glenn
August 16, 2020
Great history of liability limitations on the internet
I learned a great deal about the history of legal battles around limiting liability for internet platforms. The book presents a balanced view of the many implications that any particular policy choice might generate. There is no path that does not create some unfairness or other negative consequences and I now have a better understanding of these trade offs.
I learned a great deal about the history of legal battles around limiting liability for internet platforms. The book presents a balanced view of the many implications that any particular policy choice might generate. There is no path that does not create some unfairness or other negative consequences and I now have a better understanding of these trade offs.
January 26, 2021
I was surprised at how fascinating I found this account of the history of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and analysis of where we are today. The balance of free speech, free enterprise, internet exceptionalism and the fight against bad actors and human traffickers is mirror of where we are in our society today. Nothing is more current, more relevant or more consequential. I feel informed and ready to discuss the future of the internet and public discourse.
September 4, 2021
This book is an excellent history of the development and results of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law crucial to the development of the Internet as we know it. It allows technology platform companies to host third party content without being liable for any damages done. Today, there is a lot more discomfort about the lack of moderation being done by social media companies and there are proposals to amend 230. This book is a great background to understanding the issues.
July 16, 2023
Dense. Fact-filled. Important to know that Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects online services from lawsuits based on user content. The authors did not understand implications of how the internet would evolve, hence we now live with trolling and hateful and misleading online speech. The author posits that we must maintain free speech and innovation by improving Section 230.
(Text book)
(Text book)
August 11, 2020
Extremely thoroughly researched and very interesting book about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, told through First Amendment decisions prior to its enactment and the various legal challenges to the law over time. I would have loved a bit more opinion on the future of the law, but what's there is very good and appropriately nuanced in its presentation.
April 14, 2021
I had no idea that when I read this book it would become as timely as it has. Their is a certain joy in reading a book that tells the history of such a specific phrase, equation, or moment of time. I first learned that with the book "E=MC2", and this book succeeds in the same way. It shows how something so small can shape the world around us without us noticing.
July 11, 2021
This book is an excellent argument in favor of Section 230. The author acknowledges areas of improvement that are required for the law's viability, while also showing the serious costs society would have to pay if the law were repealed.
If you are interested in why the internet works the way it does, this books is an easy recommendation.
If you are interested in why the internet works the way it does, this books is an easy recommendation.
August 29, 2021
Interesting and easy to understand. It's unreal how much of our modern world is based off a seemingly-uninteresting clause, no longer than the length of this review, in a bill that had all kinds of other important provisions. Kosseff does a great job of boiling down complicated legal history into an approachable book.
January 22, 2023
However he is not convincing in his argument that S230 is truly essential (and his analogy in the conclusion is particularly bad) or why sex trafficking alone should be carved out.
Still, very interesting and accessible read on a pretty important issue. Layman translation of court cases that make legalese accessible.
Still, very interesting and accessible read on a pretty important issue. Layman translation of court cases that make legalese accessible.
December 27, 2023
(3.5) Section 230, is the law that gave us the internet we have today. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects websites and online service providers from liability for what their users post.
It took me a year to finish this book. Sure, it was often dry and repetitive (law often is), but I also found the content compelling and engaging. How do you balance freedom of speech and innovation with safety?
The book's first half details the Section 230's creation and passage. The middle examines the case law that has upheld it. The last part of the book looks at how and if the law should be adjusted.
It took me a year to finish this book. Sure, it was often dry and repetitive (law often is), but I also found the content compelling and engaging. How do you balance freedom of speech and innovation with safety?
The book's first half details the Section 230's creation and passage. The middle examines the case law that has upheld it. The last part of the book looks at how and if the law should be adjusted.
January 2, 2021
This is an excellent biography of Section 230 documenting the origin, impact and implications beyond the mass media sound bites. Take the time to read this, especially if you want to advocate a position. Be educated before you exercise your American right if “Free Speech”.
May 29, 2022
Exceptionally well documented and nuanced overview of Section 230. For anyone who has an interest in understanding the history and caselaw influencing the social media landscape this is a great read. Accessible and compellingly written.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews