Last week Hastings’ own Bridgette Norring spoke in Washington D.C. on a bill that would repeal Section 230, broad protections for social media companies from the content hosted on their site.
“More than 80% of teens dying from deadly fentanyl pills connect with their dealers on social media, mainly Snapchat and Instagram. What’s more is that tech companies know and have known for the past decade they play a significant role in the soaring number of drug-related deaths in our country,” said Norring.
Norring founded the Devin J. Norring Foundation after the death of her son, Devin J. Norring, from fentanyl poisoning in 2020. Devin bought what he believed to be a Percocet pill on Snapchat for black-out migraines he was suffering from due to a cracked molar. Because of the then-ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, he was unable to receive dental treatment.
Devin graduated from Hastings High School in 2019. He was 19 years old.

Section 230
This year marks the 30th year since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed which contained Section 230. Section 230 provides broad immunity to social media companies for the content they host, posted by other users.
“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,” according to Section 230.
“To the extent this protection was ever needed, its usefulness is long since passed,” said Sen. Dick Durbin.
Former Rep. Dick Gephardt spoke to voting for that bill in 1996:
“I voted for it because social media platforms told us that without that protection, America would never have an internet economy. They also said that the platforms were just a dumb pipe that just carried content produced by others but not them.”
Gephardt spoke to how “dumb pipe” has changed in the decades since 1996. He compared social media companies to other industries like the auto industry that does not have similar protections when harm befalls their users.
“The platforms enjoy this protection that no other business enterprise in this country enjoys,” said Gephardt.

Bipartisan support
Lawmakers highlighted the bipartisan nature of the bill which is supported by both Democrats and Republicans.
“To do anything unanimously around here is a miracle, and we’ve done it,” said Durban.
It was a sentiment echoed by Sen. Linsay Graham in a press release on the bill:
“I am extremely pleased that there is such wide and deep bipartisan support for repealing Section 230, which protects social media companies from being sued by the people whose lives they destroy. Giant social media platforms are unregulated, immune from lawsuits and are making billions of dollars in advertising revenue off some of the most unsavory content and criminal activity imaginable.”

Opposition
Opponents of the bill cite Section 230 as the rule that allowed the early internet to flourish by allowing hosting sites immunity from liability on use-posted content. Critics say that the bill would stifle free speech by forcing tech companies to overly-police their content due to their newfound liability.
It was a point Norring specifically spoke to:
“Sunsetting Section 230 won’t destroy the internet and nothing we are proposing will impact our First Amendment rights. What it will do is end blanket immunity without responsibility for tech companies.”

Working with Big Tech
Part of the reason lawmakers and activists are pushing for repealing Section 230 is because they say the broad immunity has allowed tech and social media companies to ignore problems of extortion and drug dealing on their platforms.
South Carolina State Rep. Brandon Guffey spoke to his son’s death by suicide after being extorted online for sexually explicit materials. Even after his son’s death, Meta would not take down the pages associated with the extortionist.
“Meta knows this is a criminal and decided to leave this profile up for them to continue to harm children. I bring all that up to point out that as I start going around to talk to say this is unacceptable, this is not what social media is about, the only thing I keep getting told is ‘we can’t do anything because of Section 230,’” said Guffey.
“Snapchat’s Vice President for Global Public Policy Jennifer Stout told us that as parents we should have been monitoring our children better and due to Section 230 we had no power to hold them legally accountable in court. They looked at us parents who had lost our children, heard our stories and lied to us about what they knew,” said Norring. “Shame on big tech for putting profits above our children’s safety.”