Can the internet be reclaimed from Big Tech?

What It Covers

Fordham Law professor Olivier Sylvain argues that Section 230's broad liability immunity, combined with a libertarian "free speech platform" myth, has concentrated power in Big Tech and proposes three specific legal reforms to rebalance it.

Key Questions Answered

• •Section 230 Reform: Section 230, passed in the 1990s, grants internet companies near-total immunity from liability for user-generated content. Sylvain argues this protection should be narrowed so companies face legal consequences when they knowingly allow their services to cause demonstrable harm to users or society.
• •Platform vs. Engineer: Calling Facebook, YouTube, or X a "platform" is a deliberate misdirection. These companies actively engineer user experiences through algorithms designed to maximize advertiser revenue, not facilitate free expression. Recognizing this distinction is the first step toward demanding accountability from them.
• •Data Protection Gap: The U.S. lacks any comprehensive federal data protection law, unlike the EU, Brazil, and China. Sylvain advocates for federal legislation limiting how companies collect and use personal data, plus mandatory algorithmic transparency so users understand how content is targeted at them.
• •AI Parallel Warning: The same libertarian argument used to block internet regulation in the 1990s — that oversight stifles innovation and free speech — is now being deployed to resist AI regulation, even as consumer harms emerge. Recognizing this pattern allows policymakers and citizens to push back earlier.