Overview
- Enacted in 1996 to shield early hosts and enable good-faith moderation, the law is criticized as mismatched to today’s recommendation-driven platforms.
- Commentators from the right and left argue the statute has morphed into broad immunity that entrenches Big Tech power and distorts competition.
- Critics say platforms monetize engagement yet evade responsibility for trafficking, terrorism and other harms by invoking the statute’s protections.
- One proposal would keep protections for passive hosting but remove immunity for algorithmic amplification that ranks, boosts and autoplays content; YouTube says recommendations drive over 70% of watch time.
- Others call for full repeal or fundamental restructuring, asserting the law enables viewpoint suppression under the guise of moderation.