Section 230 refers to the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provides legal immunity to internet platforms (such as social media companies and websites) from being held liable for content created by its users. In effect, they’re not treated as publishers of user-generated content, meaning they can’t be held legally responsible for what people post.

Section 230 also holds that platforms are allowed to moderate content as they see fit, without losing their immunity from liability.

So, repealing these immunities would be a RIDICULOUS mess for social media companies, to the point that they’d probably shut down. Can you imagine if someone with pockets as deep as Facebook’s could get sued for harmful, false, or defamatory content posted by Facebook users? They’d have ten million lawsuits against them on day one.

Conversely, this might result in extremely strict content moderation, to avoid lawsuits, which would most certainly reduce free speech online, which is something Carr says he wants the FCC to champion, so this idea is somewhat nonsensical. Carr also argues that these bigger tech companies have unfair monopolies over smaller companies, then turns around and argues for a policy which would prevent smaller tech companies from existing – they can’t afford the legal compliance.

This position is SO far opposed to what Carr claims to want, that one wonders if he’s claiming he wants free speech, but really doesn’t (and knows that what he’s calling for will result in killing it.)

Full contextual analysis of Section 5.2: Federal Communications Commission here.