America faces a dangerous phenomenon: a generation shaped by addictive and manipulative digital media.

• Unprecedented Power of Manipulation: digital platforms run on algorithms designed to maximize ad revenue by keeping users on the platform as long as possible. To do this, they learn individual behavior and feed highly personalized, addictive content, often exploiting emotions such as anger. Delivered this way, content can gradually reshape beliefs and behaviors without users realizing it, making the medium a magnet for propaganda operations pushing ideologies at scale. Young people are especially at risk because their impulse-control systems are still developing. The danger is amplified by isolation as they enter adulthood, often without family, mentors, or community guardrails. In extreme cases, vulnerable individuals radicalized by digital content commit violent acts.
• Accountability Gap: traditional publishers and broadcasters are legally responsible for what they distribute. If a newspaper prints a defamatory op-ed, the defamed person can sue the paper as the publisher. This accountability compels traditional media to self-regulate, reducing harmful content before it reaches the public. By contrast, in social media, platforms are shielded by Section 230 from nearly all liability, and content creators may be anonymous, unreachable, bots, or content farms. This has created a massive accountability gap, removing incentives for both platforms and creators to reduce harmful or manipulative content.

PETITION


Ask regulators and platforms to close the social-media accountability gap by modernizing Section 230 so that:

1. Platforms retain immunity only if they meet the following conditions designed to protect users and incentivize creators to self-regulate:

• Condition 1: verify that content creators are legitimate humans or organizations, clearly label them, and allow users to filter out illegitimate creators such as bots, content farms, or foreign entities.
• Condition 2: trace all content to its original creator, who assumes rights and responsibilities for their work, and give creators control over how their content is reposted, reused, or amplified.
• Condition 3: track the reach of all content, disclose when content from legitimate creators achieve broadcast-level audiences (e.g., >3 million views), restrict content from illegitimate creators to minimal reach (e.g., <1 million views).
• Condition 4: limit algorithmic recommendations to content from legitimate creators and make it optional, giving users the ability to turn them off at any time.

2. Platforms forfeit immunity and assume publisher-like responsibility for any content they algorithmically amplified to broadcast-level audiences (e.g., >3 million views).

This petition injects accountability into the digital ecosystem, incentivizing platforms and content creators to reduce the spread of harmful and manipulative content. It protects users, empowers creators, preserves Section 230 immunity for platforms that meet clear conditions, and defines when platforms and creators share responsibility for content algorithmically amplified to broadcast-level audiences. The result is a safer, more transparent, and more responsible social media environment, without stifling innovation or legitimate expression.

IF YOU AGREE SIGN THIS PETITION. NEED MORE INFO? SEE Q&A BELOW:

Q1. What was the original intention of Section 230? It was enacted in 1996, long before algorithmic recommendations or addictive short-form content, to let internet platforms host third-party content without being treated as publishers, spurring the growth of social-media, forums, reviews, and online discussions.

Q2. Why hasn’t Section 230 been updated? Any reform is politically difficult because it touches free speech, user privacy, and platforms’ business models. Most past proposals focused on content moderation, but few addressed the massive accountability gap in the ecosystem.

Q3. Does the proposal end privacy or anonymity? No, it shouldn’t. Platforms are capable of verifying creators are legitimate humans or organizations without exposing their private identities.

Q4. Does the proposal suppress free expression? No, it shouldn’t. None of the conditions affect the legitimate users’ ability to express their views and lets platforms keep Section 230 immunity when the content is not algorithmically amplified.  

Q5. Would this be too expensive to implement? Not really. Platforms already use tools like verification, tracking, and labeling for ads. This proposal sets clear, transparent rules to guide innovation rather than add new burdens.

Q6. What are the benefits for users, creators, and platforms? Users gain control over algorithmic recommendations, protection from manipulative content, and recourse against responsible parties if harmed. Creators gain protection from plagiarism, control over how their work is reused or amplified, and clarity on liability when content reaches mass audiences. Platforms retain Section 230 immunity for normal operations, enjoy clearer liability rules, and compete on a level playing field under uniform standards.

Q7. Where did the “broadcast-level” reach threshold come from? 3-million views is just a suggested starting point. Regulators and platforms could refine it over time using traditional mass media as benchmark.