With sextortion and suicides on the rise, Jimmy Patronis seeks to strip Big Tech of Section 230 immunity

U.S. Rep. Jimmy Patronis says it’s time to take major legal protections away from Big Tech firms, citing the dangers of online child exploitation.

The Fort Walton Beach Republican wants to repeal Section 230, a controversial portion of the Communications Decency Act that shields companies from lawsuits related to criminal activity using their social media platforms to communicate.

The Promoting Responsible Online Technology and Ensuring Consumer Trust (PROTECT) Act would delete those protections in federal law.

“As a father of two young boys, I refuse to stand by while Big Tech poisons our kids without consequence,” Patronis said.

“This is the only industry in America that can knowingly harm children, some with deadly consequences, and walk away without responsibility. Big Tech is digital fentanyl that is slowly killing our kids, pushing parents to the sidelines, acting as therapists, and replacing relationships with our family and friends. This must stop.”

Section 230 treats social media companies differently than, say, a news publication. For instance, whereas news outlets can be held liable for defamatory comments made on their platform, social media companies are not held liable for remarks made by users, save a few exceptions. Only the user (or possibly others who share false claims) would be liable for defamation in this example, not the tech platform where the remark is posted.

Proponents of Section 230 argue that without it, social media companies would be dissuaded from launching or operating in the first place. Opponents, however, say the protections too easily allow illegal conduct to spread online.

The U.S. Supreme Court in two 2024 rulings upheld Section 230 when prosecutors sought to prosecute companies under anti-terrorism laws.

In December, a Pennsylvania family sued Meta after the death by suicide of a teenager being blackmailed using an Instagram account, as reported by NBC News. That’s a case of an increasingly common crime known as “sextortion.”

“It is time for parents to stand up and fight back against these tech giants. The dark forces of social media and tech evolve faster than any parent can screen or detect, even with the best skills,” Patronis said.

“It is time we demand accountability for declining mental health in minors and the increase in suicide and self-harm. These are minor children who are getting hurt. If a billboard or TV channel couldn’t publish bullying or violent materials without liability, why can big tech? Let’s end the double standard.”

The legislation will likely face resistance from tech companies increasingly involved in federal lobbying. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a technology advocate, has defended Section 230 protections, arguing social media platforms were a platform for communication and should not be held responsible for what criminals say.

“Section 230 embodies that principle that we should all be responsible for our own actions and statements online, but generally not those of others,” an EFF website page on the topic states. “The law prevents most civil suits against users or services that are based on what others say.”

Patronis pointed at programming pushing content on children in their social media feeds, and sometimes generating it with artificial intelligence tools. Families are suing over chatbots that allegedly told teenagers to commit suicide, as reported by NPR. Patronis also said algorithms have pushed content contributing to depression, eating disorders and drug addiction.

“These companies design their platforms to hook children, exploit their vulnerability and keep them scrolling no matter the cost,” Patronis said.

“When children are told by an algorithm, or a chatbot, that the world would be better without them, and no one is being held responsible, something is deeply broken. I bet they would actually self-police their sticky apps and technologies if they knew they would have to pay big without the Big Tech Liability Protection of Section 230.”