Section 230: the sword and armor of the Internet

This piece of mine was originally in Vietnamese and published in VnExpress, the most popular Internet newspaper in Vietnam. I was humbled to learn that the Vietnam experts at Harvard Kennedy School wanted it translated to English and included in a policy memo that they'll share with the Government of Vietnam.

The translation was done by Nguyen Quy Tam, Fulbright School of Public Policy and Management, and reposted here with Tam's permission.

--

I first went online 20 years ago and probably never disconnected. I was one of the first generation of young Vietnamese to grow up on the Internet. I honestly couldn't imagine what my life would be like without it. For years of being schooled in Vietnam, I quietly learned how to "self-censor". I know what I shouldn't say, be obedient and don't dare to ask questions. Life is simple, white - black, friend - enemy, right - wrong, it is all predefined, just memorize.

Fortunately, what was not learned in school, I learned from the Internet. Friends from all over the world, through articles, blogs, and debates in open forums taught me how to think, encouraged me to ask questions, asked me to always be suspicious, guided me how to agree and disagree with others and with myself.

I'm not a good student, but the teacher Internet helped me understand that dualism is only in textbooks; that what I believe to be true may be prejudice; what I believe is true may be only half true; what I thought I knew might just be because someone wanted me to see them that way. The same historical figure, but people may "force him to be noble or disreputable”, it just depends.

Not only does it help me illuminate hidden corners of my mind, the Internet also gives me professional knowledge and career opportunities beyond the borders of Vietnam. Now, working for one of the largest Internet companies in the world, I am a screw in a huge machine every day contributing to making the Internet more useful, faster and safer for everyone. My work gives me the opportunity to see the profound impact of the Internet on every aspect of American life. The US Internet industry is worth several trillion dollars. It leads the nation's creativity, creating millions of jobs and lots of millionaires and billionaires. Young Americans who dreamed of getting rich often thought of Wall Street, now, they dream about San Francisco.

Each person lives a different life. There is no reason for my experience to be the same as yours. But if the Internet was able to help me, it would help many others. And if the Internet can help America become strong, why can't it make a positive change for Vietnam? In order to do that, I realized that the prerequisite is to keep the cyberspace always free and open.

In 2018, when the National Assembly of Vietnam prepared to pass the Cyber Security Law, I spent a lot of time studying Internet laws and policies, hoping that Vietnam would choose a reasonable path. I wondered how Americans managed the Internet and discovered that the Internet as we know it today is created by a 26-word rule. "No 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." This text, part of Section 230 of the US Communication Decency Act, has provided the legal foundation for the magnificent growth of Silicon Valley over the past two decades.

In October 1994, a user posted to the forum of Prodigy - the leading US Internet service provider at the time - an article accusing Stratton Oakmont securities company of fraudulence. In return, Stratton Oakmont sued Prodigy and the writer of defamation.

Movie buffs will probably remember Stratton Oakmont, the crafty stock company depicted in Wall Street Wolf, founded by the real character Jordan Belfort (casted by Leonardo Di Caprio).

American law and Common law then stipulated that Prodigy could only be sued for defamation if they were the "information provider" (publisher), and if they only acted as the "distributor" they will be protected by freedom of speech, as stated in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

The key question in the Stratton Oakmont case is: Is an Internet service provider (ISP) like Prodigy responsible for the content created by their customers? More specifically, is the company running a forum responsible for user posts?

Stratton Oakmont argues that Prodigy plays the role of "information provider" because it not only transmits passive information, but also has the right to edit content, set rules for forums and especially promote and use objectionable content filtering technologies as a business strategy. The New York Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiff, and Prodigy lost the case. This is one of the first lawsuits in the US involving Internet service providers, its outcome will affect all lawsuits with similar situations.

The New York Court ruling put Internet companies at a standstill. If they want to not be sued like Prodigy, which means that they are just distributors, firms must stop all user-content controls. But if they all no longer controlled the content, the Internet would quickly become a mess, full of offensive, obscene content, inciting racial, religious hatred ... The Internet cannot grow but will soon fade.

Realizing the great potential of the Internet in promoting the economic, cultural, educational and political development of the United States and of all humanity, the US Congress quickly stepped in. Congressmen Chris Cox and Ron Wyden, one of the Republicans and the other of Democrats, joined hands with the technology experts to create a law that we know today as Section 230.

Being signed into law by Clinton in 1996, Section 230 provides Internet companies with "armor and sword." Companies will not be responsible for the content provided by others, but still have the right to edit, change, filter them in the way they think is best for their customers. And just like that, the Internet has become free and flourished.

Now the industry that "relies on content provided by others" has been worth trillions of dollars with Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube as examples... Not just for-profit corporations, the open encyclopedia Wikipedia also exists entirely thanks to "content provided by others." Wikipedia has more than 6 million English articles and over one million Vietnamese articles, mostly contributed by volunteers from around the world. In other words, without readers' comments, many online newspapers will be just dull. User comments are sometimes even more interesting than the content of the article, with new perspective and more interaction.

Regarding Vietnam's Internet policy, I have not seen a law or regulation that provides the kind of "armor and sword" that Section 230 gave to US firms. Therefore, when faced with the risk of a collision with the government, many companies will often choose a safe solution that is self-censoring, making people sometimes question the freedom and safety of using domestic Internet services.

The Government is drafting and consulting the Draft Decree amending and supplementing Decree No. 72/2013 on Internet management. Reading all the drafts and comments, I found that the Drafting Board was very receptive to comments from individuals, organizations and companies at home and abroad. But compared to Section 230 of the US, Vietnam's approach is very different from the same issue.

At first glance, Section 230 seems to interfere with the Internet, but in fact the main objective of Chris Cox and Ron Wyden is to minimize US government intervention in the natural development of the Internet. American lawmakers understand that sometimes the government needs to know how to back down so that the private and market can decide. If companies do not have appropriate content control policies, they will be eliminated by the market forces without resorting to government intervention. Nearly a quarter of a century ago, the US Internet market was far behind Vietnam now, but Americans had those congressmen who understand that policy making is not about ban and punishment but incentive and reward.

As for Vietnam, with a young population, technological connoisseurs and talents, why has the potential digital industry not boomed yet? Why does Vietnam still not have successful businesses in user generated content, and people still prefer foreign platforms? I believe that the future of Vietnam will be different if there is a different approach right now.

Section 230 is not without its disadvantages and Vietnam cannot fully reproduce it, but in my opinion, its spirit is well-deserved for policy makers to study and apply. Empowering businesses and markets is key to unlocking the cage that is trapping Vietnam's multi-billion dollar industry.