I believe that Section 230 is an extremely relevant and important topic, especially in the modern day,

where technology is an even larger part of our life than it was 25 years ago. If we were to readjust this
passage, it would have wide sweeping e ects, that would undoubtedly be harmful to our society. While
some see social media as a place where hate runs rampant and people are cyber bullied, this is merely
the ugly side of it all. No matter what the form of communication, someone will use it for nefarious
means. This is a fact of human existence, and one that we would be well o remembering when
considering revisions to Section 230.

As one who frequents online spaces, I know by my own experience that social media can be an
outlet, refuge, and bonding place for those who need it most. The anonymity of it all provides excellent
encouragement to be vulnerable and talk about your feelings, where, otherwise, it may be di cult. Not
only does it provide a place to let out frustrations and worries, it also allows people to meet others who
share interests and have experienced similar burdens to themselves. Those oppressed in normal
circumstances, such as the LGBTQ+ community and those of discriminated ethnicities and races, have
communities that welcome them with open arms and understanding. I, personally, have struggled with
depression; the internet has been one of the only reasons I have made it through it all. This is why I
implore you; think about those like me, who are without hope nor shoulder to lean on, and what the
moribund of such sites might do to them. Taking this tool away would snatch this opportunity from
those in dire need.

While some may say that removing Section 230 does not stop any social media site from continuing
its business, this is awed. Some of these sites may continue, their corporate in uence and income
enough to stave o the lawsuits; however, many will be lost. Now, I propose a question, what fault of
these sites requires such action? The ones who ght for Section 230 to be altered may see it as a way
to stop hate speech and to make these corporations take responsibility for their users actions. This,
too, is awed logic. Do we antagonize the paper mills for their production of the very material that evil
deeds have been done upon? No, and neither should we persecute these corporations, for the sites
they run, much like paper, provide such a large bene t to society that, until recently, was never seen.
Never before has information and positivity been spread across the world at such a rate; never before
have humans had near limitless communication at such astonishing speeds. Social media platforms
provide incontrovertible good to our society, and changing this protection to those who run these sites
would only serve to weaken and crumble them.

I hear your counterarguments, that those who run these sites are capable of limiting and locking
away the hate speech, and I do concede, they may have that power. However, let us look to Facebook
for an example, a massive website with billions of users. The idea that a company, even with the help
of AI, could manage every single instance of hate speech is preposterous. Perhaps, instead of ning
and, thus, slowly draining away these companies, who by no actions of their own intent have provided
a method for people to continue hate, we look at the contribution to society, democracy, and speech
that social media provides. The crimes of the few must not doom the whole. We must ask ourselves if
ltering out some of the hate speech we experience, no matter what setting we are in, is worth losing
what may be the greatest revolution in human history, that of online connectivity.