DISCOURSE Act Disincentivizing Internet Service Censorship of Online Users and Restrictions on Speech and Expression Act
Impact
The anticipated impact of SB921 includes significant changes in how platforms engage with user-generated content. By expanding liability for content moderation practices, the bill may encourage platforms to either moderate more conservatively to avoid liability or drop moderation altogether, which could lead to a proliferation of harmful content online. Furthermore, the bill requires service providers to make public disclosures about their moderation practices, which signifies a move toward greater accountability in the tech industry. Proponents argue that these changes enhance user rights and promote free speech, particularly for marginalized voices that may be disproportionately affected by current algorithms.
Summary
SB921, also known as the DISCOURSE Act, aims to amend Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 to address perceived shortcomings in how the law regulates content moderation and distribution on internet platforms. The bill proposes to redefine the responsibilities of 'interactive computer service' providers, particularly those holding a dominant market share. If enacted, these providers would be held liable for content moderation practices that appear to express or suppress certain viewpoints without just cause. This shift has implications for the balance of power between platforms and content creators, as it seeks to enhance transparency in content management.
Contention
However, the bill has sparked considerable debate regarding its potential consequences. Critics express concerns that the increased liability for platforms could undermine moderation efforts and foster an environment where misinformation proliferates, as platforms might be disinclined to act against harmful content to avoid lawsuits. Additionally, there are worries that the bill may unintentionally disproportionately affect smaller platforms, which may lack the resources to navigate the new regulatory requirements effectively. Advocates for free speech and opponents of censorship see the bill as a necessary reform, but concerns about the implementation and unintended ramifications drive the contentious discussions.
Averting the National Threat of Internet Surveillance, Oppressive Censorship and Influence, and Algorithmic Learning by the Chinese Communist Party Act ANTI-SOCIAL CCP Act
Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act This bill generally prohibits federal employees from censoring the speech of others while acting in an official capacity. Specifically, the bill prohibits employees of executive agencies or who are otherwise in the competitive service from (1) using their official authority to influence or advocate for a third party, including a private entity, to censor speech; (2) censoring the speech of any person who has a pending regulatory application with, or is the subject of or a participant in an active enforcement action by, the employee's office; or (3) engaging in censorship while on duty, wearing a uniform, or using official government property. Certain presidential appointees may not censor speech at any time, including outside normal duty hours. Employees are subject to disciplinary action, civil penalties, or both for violations. The bill defines censor or censorship to include ordering or advocating for the removal of lawful speech, the addition of disclaimers, or the restriction of access with respect to any platform (e.g., social media).