Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
“Liability or Deniability? Platform Power as Section 230 Turns 30”
March 18, 2026
Brandon Arnold
Executive Vice President
National Taxpayers Union
Comment for the Record
As the “Voice of America’s Taxpayer,” National Taxpayers Union (NTU) is a strong supporter of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1996, which, for 30 years, has helped hundreds of millions of Americans amplify their voices on the internet.
Section 230 has long been a lightning rod for criticism. While by no means perfect, it provides an important liability shield that protects online platforms of all sizes—not just “Big Tech,” as its detractors often claim. Section 230 has been called “the Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet,” because, broadly speaking, it insulates platforms acting in “good faith” from undue litigation.
The need for such a protection is clear. The internet has created an unbelievable amount of opportunities for education, entrepreneurialism, entertainment, and other endeavors. It has, unfortunately, also created many dangers and risks, especially to young people. It has become a forum for heated debate over politics, religion, sports, and pretty much any conceivable topic. As these debates devolve, they have too often given rise to harassment, bullying, and even physical threats.
For platforms, this has created tremendous challenges. Policing online behaviors, taking down inappropriate comments or posts, and responding to phenomena like “review bombing” have become critical—and costly—functions for platforms. These functions expose companies to criticism. For instance, taking down a politically charged post could invite accusations of censorship, while allowing unsavory comments to remain on a message board could suggest that a company endorses that viewpoint.
Some have suggested that repealing Section 230 would solve the problem. In actuality, it would make the situation substantially worse.
Repealing Section 230 would completely alter the manner in which online platforms monitor and respond to reviews, comments, and posts. This would harm social media sites like Nextdoor, X, and Truth Social; review sites like Yelp and Rotten Tomatoes; video game platforms such as Steam and Roblox; and many, many more.
To avoid litigation, platforms would likely respond by aggressively censoring a much larger quantity of user input. This could reduce the amount of information available to a consumer shopping for a new refrigerator, prevent a reader from posting comments about an op-ed he just read, or stop an aspiring musician from sharing her new song. A vastly more restrictive internet would undermine creativity, stifle innovation, and harm public discourse.
Additionally, Section 230 preempts many state laws, so its repeal could create a patchwork of state statutes governing liability related to online content. This would create confusion, complexity, and higher costs for all platforms, but would be especially burdensome on smaller companies that lack the resources to comply with dozens of regulations and an untold number of lawsuits. This could result in higher levels of consolidation of online companies and higher costs for end-users.
Section 230 is essential for preserving a thriving internet and this hearing provides an excellent opportunity to highlight that fact. It is incredibly important for members of this Committee to utilize this opportunity to share their views on Section 230 with the American people. At the same time, it is even more important for the hundreds of millions of Americans who are not members of this Committee to be able to continue to share their views on the topic of their choice in the internet ecosystem. The latter would not be possible without the prudent protections established by Section 230.