Rhetoric:

Alex and I negate Resolved: the United States Federal Government Should Repeal Section 230
of the Communications Decency Act

The internet has never been more important, luckily, The Electronic Frontier Foundation from
2021 writes Section 230 has been the linchpin of the internet as it protects websites big and
small and individuals. Without it, the internet could not exist.

Indeed, Section 230’s liability shield is responsible for digital success. Scott Lincicome in 2020
writes The two provisions are credited with fueling the growth of all internet businesses. Section
230 increased the internet’s economic value by nine-fold, three times larger than the U.S
manufacturing industry.

Overall, the advent of this law has ensured our freedoms of expression and fueled the rise of the
21st century.

A repeal of it would shatter the bedrock of the modern world in two ways

The first is a tech crash

The economy will achieve a soft landing in 2024. Condon this month writes: The economy has
achieved a soft landing. Job gains and wage increases exceeded expectations.

But with a repeal of Section 230, companies would face an inundation of litigation. This causes
stock market chaos John Banks 2020 confirms: Without 230, media platforms would face
hundreds of lawsuits per week and would be at the risk of bankruptcy. Big companies like
Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and many others would instantly face litigation. Thus,
repeal would cause a stock market crash as thousands of publicly traded companies would have
business ending liability imposed.

As a result, investors feel uneasy as Ethan Wham from 2019 analyzes: If liability protections
were weakened, 71% of investors would be uncomfortable investing.

Don’t just take our word for it, look to history – during the Trump era just talks about repeal
caused stocks to fall, Louis Navellier 2020 writes: Facebook stock prices declined after Trump
declared war on Section 230
The tech sector is interconnected with the economy; an economic shock would mean a
disaster, Rana Foroohar 2019 writes: Tech firms are the most profitable industry and are
CRUCIAL in the market, holding assets that could collapse the market if downgraded.

Foroohar concludes: in a downturn, credit drops would be similar to the 2008 financial crisis.

An economic crash would cause a calamity, Alexander from 2010 confirms: collapse in
economic activity pushed 100 million people below the poverty line.

The second way is through cutting internet access

Under Section 230, internet access has expanded rapidly. Justin Fugle in 2023 writes that over
the last 30 years, internet access has transitioned from a luxury to a necessity, integral to well-
being and prosperity. Since 2015, the internet-poor population has decreased by 685 million

This is because competition is causing a broadband price decline, Layton from 2022 writes:
Prices have fallen 42 percent among 50 providers reflecting increased competition.

Repeal makes internet service providers liable as Aaron Terr from 2023 writes: Section 230
includes liability protection for internet service providers.

ISP liability increases overhead costs, hiking consumer prices. Lichtman and Posner
from 2004 write: Liability would stop ISPs from offering service to risky users and will
raise the price of service due to added costs and legal exposure. That drives consumers
out of the market.

No matter how you slice it, Beam in 1999 writes: In order to police online activities, access
costs would increase significantly.

Smaller ISPs would face disproportionate burdens due to liability costs exacerbating the
problem. Beam furthers: Small providers would be forced out of business. The providers that
would be able to afford supervision would have to discriminate against who they grant access
to. Increased costs would be passed on to the consumer.

Devastatingly, due to inflation, small price hikes cause people to lose access, Winslow from
2023 writes: 61% of consumers struggle to pay their internet bill due to inflation. One third of
Americans without internet say cost is the obstacle standing in their way.

Increased internet access is imperative. Ney in 2022 writes: Increasing internet by 1% can
create jobs for 405,000 people, families use newfound access to search for jobs, healthcare,
training, and government support.
Ultimately, Houngbonon 2018 concludes: A percentage point increase in broadband lowers
inequality by 1%. Between 2009 and 2013 in France, broadband adoption alone contributed to
34% of income growth and 80% of inequality reduction.

Thus, negate.
 Cards
Alex and I negate

The internet has never been more important, luckily,

Electronic Frontier Foundation, 21, xx-xx-2021, "Section 230," Electronic Frontier Foundation, https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230, accessed
12-15-2023 // AI BZ 🦞
For more than 25 years, Section 230 has protected us all: small blogs and websites, big
platforms, and individual users. The free and open internet as we know it couldn’t exist
without Section 230. Important court rulings on Section 230 have held that users and services cannot
be sued for forwarding email, hosting online reviews, or sharing photos or videos that
others find objectionable. It also helps to quickly resolve lawsuits cases that have no legal
basis.

Indeed, Section 230’s liability shield and freedoms are responsible for the unparalleled
success of the digital world
Scott Lincicome, 20, 10-20-2020, "Fine, Let's Talk about Section 230," Cato Institute, https://www.cato.org/commentary/fine-lets-talk-
about-section-230, accessed 12-15-2023 // AI BZ 🦞
Together, these two provisions are widely credited with fueling the growth of not just social
media, but essentially all internet businesses. Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown explains why: Section 230
stipulates, in essence, that digital services or platforms and their users are not one and the same
and thus shouldn’t automatically be held legally liable for each other’s speech and conduct.
Which means that practically the entire suite of products we think of as the internet —search
engines, social media, online publications with comments sections, Wikis, private message
boards, matchmaking apps, job search sites, consumer review tools, digital marketplaces,
Airbnb, cloud storage companies, podcast distributors, app stores, GIF clearinghouses,
crowdsourced funding platforms, chat tools, email newsletters, online classifieds, video
sharing venues, and the vast majority of what makes up our day‐to‐day digital experience
—have benefited from the protections offered by Section 230. Following the passage of
Section 230, online business activity exploded. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that the
economic value created by “internet publishing” and the broader “ICT‐producing industries” each increased
around nine‐fold (in real, inflation‐adjusted terms) following Section 230’s passage in 1996. For perspective: today the
“internet publishing” industry alone is more than three times larger ($293.4 billion in real
value‐added in 2019) than the entire U.S. “primary metals” manufacturing industry ($79.3
billion), and “Big Tech” employs far more workers too. Surely, not all of this growth is attributable to Section
230—technology (faster internet speeds, the rise of smartphones, etc.) undoubtedly played a big role—but experts uniformly agree
that Section 230 helped. A lot.

Overall, the advent of this law has ensured our freedoms of expression and fueled the rise
of the 21st century.
A repeal of it would shatter the bedrock of the modern world in two ways

The first is a tech crash

The economy will pull off a soft landing

Condon ’1-5 [Christopher; 2024; Seattle Times, “U.S. economy has achieved long-sought soft landing, Yellen declares,”
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/u-s-economy-has-achieved-long-sought-soft-landing-yellen-declares/; SY]
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen declared Friday the U.S. economy had achieved a long-
sought soft landing, a historically unusual event in which high inflation is tamed without significantly
damaging the labor market. “What we’re seeing now I think we can describe as a soft landing, and my hope is that it will
continue,” Yellen said Friday in an interview with CNN. Government figures out earlier Friday showed job gains and
wage increases in December both exceeded expectations, with payrolls climbing 216,000. The report, which
suggested continued upside risk for inflation, prompted investors to trim bets that the Federal Reserve would begin cutting rates in March.
Yellen zeroed in on the latest wage data, which showed average hourly earnings rose 4.1% in the year
through December. Given consumer inflation for the year is projected by economists to come in at 3.2%, that would mean wages
exceeded price growth in 2023. “Wage increases are running over price increases now,” she said.
“American workers are getting ahead, and the progress for the middle-income families is very
noticeable.” Yellen declined to comment on how she thought the Fed should proceed but said the central bank
had handled monetary policy well. “The path the labor market and economy and inflation have
followed suggests they’ve made a set of good decisions,” Yellen said. For two years, the Treasury chief
consistently rejected the gloomiest predictions for the U.S. economy even as the central bank pursued an aggressive rate-hiking campaign through
much of 2022 and 2023. While never ruling out a recession altogether, she repeatedly said she saw a “path” to a so-called soft landing. In recent
weeks, Yellen
has been on something like a victory lap. In December, she said economists who predicted
recession were now “eating their words,” and she repeated her critique Friday. “There has been a lot of pessimism about the
economy that’s really proven unwarranted,” she said. “A year ago, most forecasters believed we would fall into a recession. Obviously, that
hasn’t happened.”

It takes the wind out of the sails of thousands of publicly traded companies crashing the
stock market like the dot-com bubble
John Banks, 20, 12-3-2020, "What is Section 230, and Why is it Stirring Up Drama on Capitol Hill? – TradeSmith," No
Publication, https://tradesmith.com/what-is-section-230-and-why-is-it-stirring-up-drama-on-capitol-hill/, accessed 12-17-2024 //
recut AI BZ 🦞
Putting aside the tiny (but nonzero) chance of a national defense crisis if Trump decides to pocket veto the NDAA, it feels worthwhile to take a
closer look at Section 230, an obscure section of a nearly 25-year-old law that has stirred the
president’s ire and created headaches for big tech. The first thing to know is that, contrary to the president’s
assertion in his tweets, Section 230 applies to far more than just “Big Tech.” It touches thousands

of companies, if not hundreds of thousands, from the largest tech giants all the way down
to individual bloggers and local internet service providers. In fact, Section 230 is considered by the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF) to be “the most important law protecting internet speech” and “one of the most

valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the internet.” Formally
known as CDA 230, Section 230 is a part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996. In the mid-1990s, an effort was made to
legislate speech issues around the internet. This gave birth to the CDA, which, according to the EFF, was originally intended to restrict free
speech. But thanks to the efforts of the EFF and the early internet community, the anti-free speech provisions of the CDA were ultimately struck
down by the U.S. Supreme Court, while Section 230 of the law remained. The key passage in Section 230 reads as follows: “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.” The passage is a legal liability shield. It basically means that a host of third-party content cannot be sued for the nature of that
content. This means that, say, Google cannot be sued for objectionable third-party content in a YouTube video. It also means Facebook cannot
be sued for objectionable content in Facebook posts, and that Amazon cannot be sued for objectionable content in product reviews. But Section
230 extends far beyond the big platforms. It
also protects internet service providers (ISPs), who might
otherwise have legal risk for providing bandwidth to an objectionable website. It even protects
individual bloggers who host their own sites, to the extent a third-party commenter might put something lawsuit-worthy in the comment section.
Last but not least, Section 230 protects third-party hosts from lawsuits related to the removal of content. If a website decides to remove third-
party content that someone posted, for whatever reason, the third-party poster can get angry and complain. But they can’t sue. The bottom line is
Section 230 be “completely terminated” is not just unworkable, it is
that President Trump’s demand that

functionally impossible. This is because, without Section 230, much of the internet would
have to shut down — or restrict free speech dramatically — for fear of being sued into
oblivion. The top-tier social media platforms would be at risk of facing hundreds of lawsuits
per week, and countless smaller web-oriented businesses would be at risk of legal bankruptcy. In Washington,
Section 230 has stirred up anger on both sides of the aisle due to questions and frustrations relating to political speech. Republicans have said
they feel censored by big tech social media platforms, whereas Democrats have accused Facebook of allowing hate speech and disinformation to
flourish. If
Section 230 were to actually be repealed, though, it wouldn’t make anyone happy.
Public venues for free speech of any kind would simply disappear en masse. Google,
Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and many others would instantly face massive legal liability
in the absence of Section 230’s protective umbrella, necessitating a drastic response. So
would smaller social media sites, internet service providers all over the country, and any website
that hosts unmonitored third-party comment sections, for that matter. What the U.S. Congress really needs to do
is reform Section 230 to deliver a more nuanced take on political speech. When it comes to the political speech angle, everyone is upset with the
current configuration of things. Some parties feel censored, others feel that propaganda, disinformation, and hate speech are not being filtered
strenuously enough, and the platforms themselves feel like they are caught in the middle of a brawl, with Republicans on one side and
Democrats on the other. As explained, the
answer is not to repeal Section 230 outright. That simply
won’t work. It would cause a stock market crash if it actually happened, as the sudden
legal liability foisted on hundreds if not thousands of publicly traded companies (far more
than just Big Tech) would create chaos. The actual answer, though, is extremely tricky and challenging. Reforming
Section 230 in a logical way, while retaining the free speech platform protections that are vital, would require Congress to engage in an
intelligent and informed debate over what the parameters of 21st century political speech should be, and then come to a nuanced, thoughtful, and
bipartisan solution as to how reforms should be enacted.

It's the nail in the coffin

Ethan Wham 19. 9-6-2019. An Economic Case for Section 230. Disruptive Competition Project.
https://www.project-disco.org/innovation/090619-an-economic-case-for-section-230/. Accessed 1-18-2024. /// SJS LC 🦞
It’s quite apparent that the capability for users to engage with services — both digital services and physical services with a digital presence —
online through reviews is a driving factor of the economy. A study from NERA and IA found that if
liability protections for
services are weakened, $440 billion in GDP and 4.25 million jobs could be lost every
decade. Not only that, 71% of investors polled responded they would be uncomfortable investing in
intermediaries if the protections were weakened.

Empirically,
Navellier 20 - Louis Navellier and The Investorplace Research Staff. "Facebook Stockholders Shouldn't Be Scared By Section 230 Talk". InvestorPlace, 6-2-2020,
https://investorplace.com/2020/06/fb-stockholders-dont-need-to-fear-legal-troubles/. Accessed 1-5-2024
 political
Avoiding political bias is a core principle for many successful investors. However, it’s important to stay abreast of the
wrangling going on in the world. The impact of this wrangling, for example, has caused
concern among some Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) stockholders. In this instance, FB stock price
declined on May 28 as President Trump basically declared war on social-media companies.
His ire has primarily been directed at Twitter (NYSE:TWTR), which attached fact-checking notices to some of the president’s tweets. It appears
the President wasn’t too pleased when Twitter appended “Get the facts about mail-in ballots” links to a couple of his tweets about that topic. His
response could potentially be law-changing. And, it could impact not only Twitter but also Facebook and its shareholders. Yet it’s necessary for
informed investors to dig deeper and decide whether the imminent legal battle should be cause for concern. The
Crux of the
Dispute At the center of the debate over whether social-media platforms are overstepping
their bounds is Section 230 of the 1996 Communication Decency Act. This states, “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.” The primary purpose of
Section 230 as it related to social media companies is freeing them from liability for what users post
to their sites. And so far, Facebook and Twitter haven’t been treated as “publishers” as defined by Section 230. As a result, they’ve been
allowed to censor people’s postings on their platforms as they please.

Because the tech sector is integrated into the broader economy, an economic shock
would have ripple effects.
Foroohar 19 [Rana Foroohar, 11-8-2019, "How big tech is dragging us towards the next financial crash", Guardian,
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/08/how-big-tech-is-dragging-us-towards-the-next-fin ancial-crash, accessed 1-3-2024 //cailyn]
In a low interest rate environment, with billions of dollars in yearly earnings, these high-grade firms were issuing their own cheap debt and using
it to buy up the higher-yielding corporate debt of other firms. In the search for both higher returns and for something to do with all their money,
they were, in a way, acting like banks, taking large anchor positions in new corporate debt offerings and essentially underwriting them the way
that JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs might. But, it is worth noting, since such companies are not regulated like banks, it is difficult to track exactly
what they are buying, how much they are buying and what the market implications might be. There simply is not a paper trail the way there is in
finance. Still, the idea that cash-rich tech companies might be the new systemically important
institutions was compelling. I began digging for more on the topic, and about two years later, in 2018, I came across a stunning
Credit Suisse report that both confirmed and quantified the idea. The economist who wrote it, Zoltan Pozsar, forensically analysed the $1tn in

corporate savings parked in offshore accounts, mostly by big tech firms. The largest and
most intellectual-property-rich 10% of companies – Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, Oracle and
Alphabet (Google’s parent company) among them – controlled 80% of this hoard. According to
Pozsar’s calculations, most of that money was held not in cash but in bonds – half of it in corporate
bonds. The much-lauded overseas “cash” pile held by the richest American companies, a treasure that Republicans under Trump had cited as
the key reason they passed their ill-advised tax “reform” plan, was actually a giant bond portfolio. And it was owned not by banks or mutual
technology firms. In addition to being
funds, which typically have such large financial holdings, but by the world’s biggest

[are] the most profitable and least regulated industry on the planet, the Silicon Valley
giants had also become [and] systemically crucial within the marketplace, holding assets
that – if sold or downgraded – could topple the markets themselves. Hiding in plain sight was an amazing
new discovery: big tech, not big banks, was the new too-big-to-fail industry. As I began to think about the
comparison, I found more and more parallels. Some of them were attitudinal. It was fascinating, for example, to see how much the technology
industry’s response to the 2016 election crisis mirrored the banking industry’s behaviour in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008.

Concluding that,
Foroohar 19 [Rana Foroohar, 11-8-2019, "How big tech is dragging us towards the next financial crash", Guardian,
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/08/how-big-tech-is-dragging-us-towards-the-next-fin ancial-crash, accessed 1-3-2024 //cailyn]
There are questions of whether Amazon or Facebook could leverage their existing positions in e-commerce or social media to unfair advantage in
finance, using what they already know about our shopping and buying patterns to push us into buying the products they want us to in ways that
are either a) anticompetitive, or b) predatory. There are also questions about whether they might cut and run at the first sign of market trouble,
destabilising the credit markets in the process. “Big-tech lending does not involve human intervention of a long-term relationship with the client,”
said Agustín Carstens, the general manager of the Bank for International Settlements. “These loans are strictly transactional, typically short-
term credit lines that can be automatically cut if a firm’s condition deteriorates. This means that,
in a downturn, there could be a large drop in credit to [small and middle-sized companies] and large
social costs.” If you think that sounds a lot like the situation that we were in back in 2008, you would be right. Tech
humanism long read illustration Why Silicon Valley can’t fix itself Read more Treating the industry like any other would undoubtedly require a
valuations of
significant shift in the big-tech business model, one with potential profit and share price implications. The extraordinary

the big tech firms are due in part to the market’s expectations that they will remain lightly
regulated, lightly taxed monopoly powers. But that is not guaranteed to be the case in the future. Antitrust and monopoly issues are fast
gaining attention in Washington, where the titans of big tech may soon have a reckoning.

This economic crash would be devastating – in 2008,

Alexander 10 [D. Alexander, 1-27-2010, "The Impact of the Economic Crisis on the World’s Poorest Countries", Wiley Online
Library, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2009.00018.x, accessed 1-3-2024 //cailyn]
The global recession has hit an important form of income for the poorest families – remittances. Globally worth over $300 billion a year,
remittances are significantly larger than global aid flows. Because 80 per cent of remittances to developing
countries come from high-income countries, this source of income is vulnerable to economic
crises – and indeed is expected to have fallen by between $25 billion and $66 billion over 2009 (Cali and Dell’Erba, 2009). This collapse
in economic activity – from investmentto trade and remittances – has turned the financial crisis into a
social crisis. For the poorest people in the least developed countries, this comes shortly after the rise in food prices in 2008 that is estimated
to have pushed between 130 and 155 million people into poverty (World Bank, 2008). The United Nations has estimated

that the worldwide recession has pushed 100 million more people below the poverty line (UN,
2009). That could set back progress towards meeting the first of the Millennium Development Goals – to halve extreme poverty – by up to three
years (Alexander, 2008). This collapse in economic activity – from investment to trade and remittances – has turned the financial crisis into a
social crisis. Many
more families are now being faced with the toughest decisions of extreme
poverty: pulling children out of school to help provide for the family; forgoing medicines;
and even choosing which of their children to feed. Indeed lives are threatened –infant
mortality rates are set to rise by an additional 200,000 to 400,000 deaths each year from
now to 2015 if the crisis continues(UN, 2009).

The second way is internet access

Under Section 230, internet access has expanded rapidly

Fugle 23 [Justin Fugle, 10-11-2023, "Ending internet poverty", Brookings,
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ending-internet-poverty/, accessed 1-15-2024 //cailyn]

Over the last 30 years, internet access has transitioned from a luxury that few could afford to a
necessity that is relied upon by the masses, integral to their well-being and prosperity. Technological
hardware has advanced in accordance with Moore’s Law, resulting in smaller, more powerful, and more affordable electronic devices . However,
too many are still left out—not because of the costs of a phone, but because of the cost of internet services. The variation
in the affordability of internet accessis the focus of the latest Internet Poverty Index (IPI) 2023, which projects the distribution of
individuals who are priced out of a basic package of mobile internet and are thus living in internet poverty. The IPI is based on three pillars:
quality, quantity, and affordability. For each country, a quality- and quantity-adjusted internet price is estimated for a standardized basket—1 GB
per month at 10 Mbps. The prices are adjusted to reflect a consistent level of quality in order to facilitate cross-country comparisons. The
country-level internet price is then compared against the spending power of individuals within that country, with those that would have to direct
more than 10% of their aggregate daily expenditure towards the basket deemed internet poor. Based on the latest IPI data, World Data Lab
The number of
predicts that 1.05 billion people are currently living in internet poverty. Here are three key takeaways from the IPI 2023:
people living in internet poverty has fallen throughout the past decade and that decline has continued over the last
12 months. Since 2015, the internet-poor population has decreased by 685 million or around 40%. This
reduction has taken place as the global population has grown by 535 million, meaning the percentage of people living in internet poverty has
decreased from 24% in 2015 to 13% in 2023. Asia has performed most favorably during this period, experiencing a reduction of more than 50%
—from 915 million in 2015 to 418 million in 2023 (Fig. 1). Africa has also seen an important reduction from 665 million to 524 million. Over the
past year, 42 million people have moved out of internet poverty, slightly below the average of the previous five years.

That’s because increasing competition is causing broadband prices to decline

Roslyn Layton, 2-28-2022, "New Study: US Broadband Prices Fell 42% Since 2016", Forbes,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roslynlayton/2022/02/28/new-study-us-broadband-prices-fell-42-since-2 016/?sh=27ce8a7985c0, accessed 12-23-
2023 //cailyn
BroadbandNow, an independent research organization and local broadband price comparison engine, released a
study on changes in US broadband prices from 2016 to today. The study compared prices across four internet
technologies (Cable, DSL, Fiber, and Fixed Wireless) in four different internet speed
buckets(25-99 Mbps, 100-199 Mbps, 200-499 Mbps, and 500+ Mbps),taking the average price over three months
in the first quarter of each year from 50 different providers. The study reflects landline prices from national
and regional providers. It does not include cellular wireless technologies like 5G. The study observes that prices have

fallen between 14-[up to] 42 percent across speeds. The largest price drop, $60, was found
on the highest speed tier, 500+ Mbps. The study concludes that prices reflect[ing] local
competition. Why It Matters The data clearly demonstrate lowered price and increased
competition. This contradicts the assertions of many leading media, think tanks and regulatory advocates that US broadband prices are
high and that there is little to no competition. For example, studies like the Open Technology Institute’s Cost of Connectivity purport that US
prices are not only high, but higher than other countries.

Repealing Section 230 makes it so that internet service providers, not just media
companies, are held liable for content
Aaron Minc, 6-3-2021, “What is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act?”, Minc. https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-
center/what-is-section-230-of-the-communication-decency-act-cda/ //DS + recut AI BZ 🦞
ISPs and tech companies can claim two types of immunity under Section 230 as defenses in
civil actions. First, defendants can argue they qualify for immunity against claims treating an ISP as a publisher of information provided
by third-parties. Second, in claims regarding a defendant’s decision to remove or filter content, the defendant can argue they made the content
decision voluntarily and in good faith.

ISP liability increases overhead costs, leading to higher consumer prices

Douglas Gary Lichtman & Eric A. Posner, 2004, “Holding Internet Service Providers Accountable”, University of Chicago
Law School, https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=law_and_economics, accessed 12-22-
2023 //vivyells
The most common objection to ISP liability is that liability
will deter ISPs from offering service to innocent
but risky users. Phrased in the more formal language of economics, the concern is that a positive externality is
created every time a new user subscribes to Internet service; and thus, if Internet access is
priced at marginal cost, some subscribers will not purchase Internet access even in
situations where the social benefits of access exceed the social costs.44 More intuitively, indirect
liability [and] will inevitably raise the price[of service because of the added costs and legal
exposure[.], and, while that higher price might better represent the real costs associated with Internet access, it will also
drive some marginal subscribers out of the market despite the fact that advertisers, information providers, merchants,
friends, and various other subscribers might in the aggregate prefer that this marginal customer remain. The problem is just an externality— a
mismatch between the private incentive to subscribe to Internet service and the social benefits made possible by that same subscription.

Simply put,
Christian C.M. Beam, 1999, “The Copyright Dilemma Involving Internet Service Providers: Problem Solved… For Now”, Indiana

University of Law, https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1210&context=fclj, accessed 12-22-2023

//vivyells
Clearly, makingOSPs [service providers] strictly liable for the infringing acts of customers
regardless of knowledge would present such entities with a daunting task. In order to
effectively police the online activities of those to whom they provide access-assuming that an effective method is possible---
costs of that access to consumers would probably go up significantly. No one has argued that service providers
should be completely excluded from liability in all situations. However, a law that would only punish those providers that know (or should
know) of infringing activity and fail to take action seems to be truly just; those that are willing to remove infringing information from their Web
sites, but have no way of knowing that such action is taking place, would be exempted from liability.

Smaller ISPs would face disproportionate burdens through liability costs, exacerbating
the problem.
Christian C.M. Beam, 1999, “The Copyright Dilemma Involving Internet Service Providers: Problem Solved… For Now”, Indiana

University of Law, https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1210&context=fclj, accessed 12-22-2023

//vivyells
One can understand Collet's concerns. The added burden of monitoring every message that passes through an
OSP would dramatically increase overhead costs. Many smaller service providers would have
been forced out of business. It follows that the OSPs [providers] that would be able to afford such
supervision would still have had to be quite discriminating as to whom they granted access.
Regardless,these increased costs would be passed on to the consumer. Fifteen dollars a month for Internet access
would become a thing of the past. The Internet is for everyone, not just wealthy people who are able to afford an increase
(probably significant) in access costs.

Due to rampant inflation, even small price hikes cause families to lose access.
George Winslow, 9-20-2023, "Survey: 61% of Americans Struggle to Pay Broadband Bills", TVTechnology,
https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/survey-61-of-americans-struggle-to-pay-broadband-bills, accessed 12-23-2023 //cailyn
The survey of 3,500 U.S. adults who pay for home internet service found that a
majority (61%) of U.S. consumers
struggled to pay their monthly internet bill due to inflation’s impact on the cost of
household items and that 39% respondents have had to cut personal expenses in order to pay their monthly internet bill. “The survey
makes it clear that most U.S. households are paying more for internet service today than when they first signed up,” said Erica Beimesche, senior
home services editor, 360 Reviews. “This new consumer survey data also highlights the ways American families are
struggling to keep up with the escalating costs to stay connected.” The study found that prices for Internet
access are rising to painful levels for some consumers. More than half (53%) reported paying between $20 and
$60 per month for internet service when they signed up with their current internet service
provider (ISP); today, close to that number (48%) now pay between $41 and $80 per month
for service from that same ISP. The impact of rising costs for broadband services comes at
a time when internet access has become an essential part of life. Americans rely on internet
access for a wide range of important daily activities, including work, school, paying bills,
and staying in touch with loved ones, the researchers said. “For the 85% of Americans going online every day –
including 31% who say they are online “almost constantly” – internet access serves as their lifeline,” the study stressed.
This may help explain why almost one-third of Americans without broadband say cost is
the obstacle standing in their way,the study said. Affordable broadband is particularly
scarce in rural and/or low-income areas, the researchers noted.

Increasing internet access decreases income inequality and allows families to access vital
services.
Jeremy Ney, 1-24-2022, "Internet Access and Inequality," //vivyells, https://www.socialpolicylab.org/post/internet-access-and-inequality
Income inequality is increasing in America, which widens the digital divide. When income inequality grows, fewer families can afford
broadband plans or purchase connected devices, fewer ISPs compete in low-income areas, and more people move into poorly connected
affordable housing. But increasinginternet access can actually reduce inequality. One study in the US showed that
increasing internet penetration by 1% can increase employment by 0.3%, creating jobs for
405,000 people. In these studies, families used this newfound access to search for jobs, healthcare,
training, and government support.

That’s why
Georges Vivien Houngbonon, 7-16-2018, "Broadband Infrastructure and Income Inequality," No Publication//vivyells,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2963860
The Wald-DiD estimates confirm the sign of the OLS estimates. More specifically, both broadband
adoption and quality
raise mean income, and lower income inequality. A percentage point increase in
broadband penetration raises mean income by 0.14% and lowers the Gini index [inequality] by 0.0005
unit, that is 1% of standard deviation. Likewise, 1 megabit per second (Mbps) additional increase in
download speed raises mean income by 0.04% and lowers the Gini index by 0.0002 unit,
that is 0.4% of standard deviation. Using the inter-decile ratios as measures of income inequality, we find that the
positive effects of broadband Internet on income inequality is driven by a relatively greater
benefit accruing to the bottom deciles, particular the second to the fifth deciles. These findings are
robust to initial conditions which could drive trends in income inequality and broadband diffusion. We use these estimates to conduct some
counterfactual analyses. First, we find that between
2009 and 2013 in France, broadband adoption alone
contributes to 34% of income growth and 80% of inequality reduction, while quality improvement
accounts for 6% and 20% respectively. Second, a percentage point increase in broadband penetration raises income per capita by 0.06%, not far
from the estimates by Czernich et al. (2011), while 1 Mbps increase in download speed raises income per capita by 0.02%. Third, the effects of
broadband penetration is non-linear with maximal impact at early stage of diffusion, when the penetration rate is below 50%. Finally, we also
find that the positive effects of broadband Internet on income distribution depends on education, measured by the number of years of schooling.
Higher level of education, as well as lower inequality in education, increase the magnitude of the effects of broadband Internet.