Professor Ethan Zuckerman is suing Meta Platforms, seeking protection to launch Unfollow Everything 2.0, a tool that allows users to "turn off their newsfeeds" and curate their own experiences on Facebook. The lawsuit aims to revisit Section 230(c)(2) of the Communications Decency Act, which could potentially give users more control over their online experiences.
On May 1, 2024, Zuckerman filed the lawsuit seeking declaratory relief that Section 230(c)(2)(B) immunizes him from civil claims and liability under breach of contract, the Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act for operating Unfollow Everything 2.0. This follows actions by Meta and other companies to block tools intended to give users more control over their online experiences.
Section 230(c)(1), often referred to as “the twenty-six words that created the internet,” states that “[n]o 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.” However, Zuckerman’s suit relies on Section 230(c)(2), which protects providers or users from liability for enabling technical means to restrict access to material considered objectionable.
Zuckerman argues that Unfollow Everything 2.0 aligns with Section 230(c)(2)'s intention by giving users agency over their online experiences without government censorship intrusion. While Section 230(c)(1) has received significant attention regarding platform liability for user-generated content, Section 230(c)(2)’s protections for content moderation have been less scrutinized despite addressing concerns about protecting children.
Section 230's history includes grassroots advocacy efforts led by CDT and others in civil society aimed at empowering users to control online information access while protecting free expression from government censorship threats. Senator J. James Exon introduced the Communications Decency Act (CDA) in February 1995 with goals echoing modern child safety debates but faced opposition from groups like CDT who saw it as a First Amendment threat.
The CDA inspired one of the first online advocacy campaigns leading to thousands of calls to congressional offices and an internet blackout protest. After its Senate passage, CDT worked with Representatives Christopher Cox and Ron Wyden on an alternative report outlining principles guiding national policy for the internet: preserving free market vibrancy in interactive media; maintaining constitutional free speech protections; encouraging industry development of blocking technologies; ensuring emerging media are not used for criminal activities.
This led to the Cox-Wyden Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act adopted as part of CDA becoming known as Section 230 after most CDA provisions were struck down by Supreme Court in Reno v ACLU case leaving only Section 230 intact.
Zuckerman’s lawsuit may clarify protections under Section 230(c)(2) creating clearer paths for middleware like Unfollow Everything but raises further questions including technological feasibility profit realization curation costs privacy protections competition interoperability issues among others requiring concerted investment involvement academia civil society help meet original promise envisioned Interactive Working Group report improving user experiences without infringing privacy free expression rights legislative proposals Kids Online Safety Act KOSA facing similar challenges constitutionality suggesting need exploring alternatives enhancing user empowerment addressing platform power concerns effectively responsibly safeguarding democratic potential internet
