Taylor Lorenz’s Power User - The Man Who Created the Internet's Most Important Law: Sen. Wyden Reveals What Big Tech Won't Tell You

Episode Date: February 16, 2026

Sen. Ron Wyden speaks about Section 230, internet freedom, free speech, and how Trump is pushing big tech's policies. Big Tech interest groups and reactionary non-profits are spending millions to try to get Section 230 revoked. My work is 100% self-funded. This series is not backed by any advertisers or tech giants. If you value this reporting, please, please support the channel: Join the Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/cw/taylorlorenz    Subscribe to my Substack:  https://www.usermag.co Section 230 is one of the most important, and most misunderstood, laws in the history of the internet. In this episode of my Section 230 mini series, I sit down with Senator Ron Wyden, one of the original co authors of Section 230, to break down what the law actually does, why it exists, and what would happen if it were repealed. Section 230 protects user generated content and ensures platforms are not treated as the speaker of everything posted online. Without it, social media platforms, forums, comment sections, Wikipedia, Reddit, and any website that hosted user generated content could be sued out of existence.There is growing political pressure to "reform" aka dismantle Section 230 entirely. If you care about online privacy, free speech, data surveillance, algorithm accountability, Big Tech regulation, or the future of the internet, I hope you'll watch!This is part two of my Section 230 deep dive series taking place every Monday. Follow me:https://www.instagram.com/taylorlorenz       https://www.instagram.com/taylorlorenz3.0      https://www.tiktok.com/@taylorlorenz  https://bsky.app/profile/taylorlorenz.bsky.social  https://twitter.com/taylorlorenz  We cover:• What Section 230 really says• Why both the left and right are attacking it• Whether repealing 230 would protect kids• The truth about Big Tech and liability• Identity verification and online privacy• Surveillance advertising and algorithm regulation• What free speech online actually means• Why generative AI is not covered by Section 230

Welcome to part two of my series on Section 230, where I demystify this crucial, but often very, very misunderstood law. Enacted in 1996, Section 230 guarantees that people who post online are legally responsible for their own speech, not the platforms that host their user-generated content. This crucial protection allows websites to host comment sections. It's what allows social media platforms and forums to exist, and it facilitates countless other forms of discourse. Section 230 is the cornerstone of the modern internet. And today I'm so excited to be chatting with one of the co-authors of the law, Senator Ron Wyden. Senator Wyden, as listeners of this podcast probably know, is pretty much the only member of Congress who understands how the internet works.

He's led the way on combating mass surveillance, protecting users' privacy, and defending the rights of marginalized people to use the internet. Today, he's joining me to talk all about Section 230, why it's such a crucial law. what's at stake if it gets removed and how he proposes we crack down on big tech and fight Donald Trump's harmful assaults on free speech. Senator Wyden, welcome to Free Speech Friday. Thanks for having me. This is an important conversation. Just to start off, can you kind of take us back to the 1990s and talk about what was the original

problem that you and Chris Cox wanted to solve when you wrote Section 230? What did you most want to prevent from happening to the internet? Taylor, I've been looking forward to this because I know you're a student. this. I thought I might start with something that was a little bit different. I was dealing with Section 230 in both the House and the Senate. In the House, I was trying to become Oregon's first new United States Senator in 30 years, began the effort working with Congressman Cox, and then I was elected to the Senate. And one of the first things that happened to me, and I haven't really talked about this,

is I walked into the Senate Democratic cloakroom, and there was Senator Exxon of Nebraska with a binder that he had made on his bill basically showing all the pictures that he thought was nasty and that he thought was what the Internet was all about. So in effect, in my first couple of days in the Senate, I saw that the lines were really drawn between a major group of opponents who were conservatives,

most of them from the South, who thought that the Internet was mostly pornography. And then, of course, there was big money already beginning to play in the space. And so what I wanted in those years in the 90s was to make sure that we dealt with some policy issues. obviously we had things like content filtering, which I thought was important and other kinds of issues like that. But I wanted to make sure that we wrote the Bedrock Foundation, which is essentially personal responsibility. The person who posts is libel.

That was what it was about then. And to this day, I continue to believe that that is the central kind of question. It's about freedom. It's about the First Amendment. It's about personal responsibility. with my priority then it still is. It's so funny to hear that because there are so many misconceptions about the internet back then and even today, I feel like something like that could happen today.

There's a lot of people that think that the internet is all evil and bad and going to poison the minds of the youths and, you know, it's kind of terrifying. Well, you're absolutely right. You have the fundamentalist Christian movement moving on a political approach. And then, of course, you have all this big money that doesn't want people, for example, to be able to get information out about ICE or repost about progressive causes and the like. Well, yeah, I saw the Heritage Foundation just published a big thing, you know, arguing against Section 230 last week. Why do you think that there are so many people on the left and the right that want to dismantle this law?

Well, a lot of people don't really, you know, understand a whole lot about this. I mean, what we've tried to say is that this is always about user. generated material. It's about freedom. That ought to apply to both folks on the left and folks on the right. And then we're talking about how we don't have all the answers. I mean, I look, for example, at privacy, I look at surveillance advertising, I look at a lot of these causes. We have a lot left to do. But these are causes that auto appeal across the political spectrum, and that's why I'm promoting it so hard. Yeah, I think some people think that, you know, Section 230 is this gift to big tech. You hear this phrasing a lot from people. Can you sort of

talk about that argument and maybe why it's not completely correct? Well, I don't think it's completely correct. And you can see it in the text of Section 230. I brought the exact words. No provider or user of a service should be held liable for the speech of another. That makes it clear that this applies across the political spectrum. And so, you know, what you have are, you know, Reddit folks who are moderators, they get sued. We've got blue sky folks. We've got, I mentioned the ICE watch. I mean, these kinds of things are public interests considerations, and they ought to be public and they ought to be part of free speech.

Why is it so important, though, that, you know, for people that don't totally understand these nuances, that platforms not be treated as the speaker of user-generated content? Well, I mean, treating platforms as the speaker of any content they carry would create massive disincentives for services to host anything they could be sued over. And that's what it's really all about, lawsuits and probably ones that could win. So controversial content is, in my view, just about the most important information that platforms carry. For example, without 230 signal, which is one of the public interest groups we haven't mentioned and the people who manage. local groups would be sued out of existence and that ought to be in everybody's interest to be supportive of making sure it doesn't happen yeah you hear this rhetoric a lot around section 230

where it's like think of the children and we're seeing things like the kids online safety act and all of this sort of like legislation emerging that is quote unquote to protect kids would repealing section 230 create of safer internet for children i don't think so i mean especially a lot of these ID things and the like. I mean, we ought to make sure that people have a chance to be heard. And I look at, for example, Big Tech. And, you know, Big Tech is just trying to put money into these political causes that Donald Trump wants. They don't care about kids. If you care about kids, you should be for my legislation that ensures that people have a right to be heard because they have lawyers. And we have lawyers to protect kids and people who are going to be heard.

then I think we have to come to the example of Sesta Fasta. I mean, Sesta Fasta is another example of where you harm sex workers and you help the bad guys. And I don't think that makes sense or is in the public interest. Yeah, I feel like, I mean, we have seen the effects of Sesta Fossa and how devastating it's been, as you said, that has not helped anyone involved. And I think that was one of the first real instances of, you know, these groups trying to chip away at Section 230. There's no question about it. And it's why we come back to the fact that Sustafasta has done nothing to protect victims or bring sex traffickers to justice. What has done is driven sex work to the dark web and dark alleys and by all accounts.

Violence against workers has gone up. So you have to look at what these issues are, not just some of the interest groups where you have either religious groups or big money groups taking on what we're trying to do. Well, I'm curious, you know, your experience as someone in Congress, like, how have you seen these big money groups or these lobbying groups? kind of shape the conversation around this issue, because it seems like there is this really aggressive, concerted push in the past couple years to villainize Section 230 and try to remove this, like, foundational Internet law.

Like, where do you think that's being driven by and who are some of the people behind these efforts to dismantle it? Well, some of my colleagues get articles and almost fed by the big interest groups, like we had an effort on the floor of the United States Senate recently to strike Section 230. And they claimed that they were,

doing the work of consumers and I was for the big tech things and I got up and I said, are you kidding me? Look at who's endorsing their effort to clobber section 230. It's Facebook and the big interest groups and I think it gave us a chance to help. But I mean, what is so important about your show is you give us a chance to get the word out to a lot of people who may not be picking up the information. For example, I've been pointing out the generative AI is not covered by Section 230. You know, and a lot of people say, oh, look, AI is terrible. I'm sure they're getting benefits from Section 230.

And the reality is when it comes to these chat bots and look at Elon Musk's horrible sexualized images of children, he ought to have been held accountable a long time ago, and he's getting away with things. Yeah, I think people kind of miss those duances. What parts of the Internet today do you think it's really important for people to remember wouldn't exist without Section 230? You mentioned Signal. What are some other examples that you've seen of, you know, this law being really crucial? Well, blue sky would be sued out of existence without my legislation. You know, Blue Sky and Reddit and Wiki and, you know, all of those, you know, groups that are asking questions that the powerful interests don't want. Those would be the people they'd go after. And, you know, Donald Trump doesn't know anything about this. I think sometimes Section 230 to him is when he thinks that's the time for a second. lunch or something. He's not up on the substance. And so all these groups and the money crowd

goes to him and that's why he's coming out for it. I'm curious if you can talk a little bit more just about this like there is such a moral panic. And sometimes when my videos go up and they get picked up by parents groups and stuff, parents say, well, then what should we do? You know, if repealing Section 230 isn't going to protect kids, then what could we do to protect children online, quote unquote? I think some of this is just moral panic. But what are your thoughts on, yeah, what you would tell those parents? Well, I just gave an example. example of getting some advocates for those kids in front of juries and in front of the courts. I mean, we've said you ought to put $5 billion into standing up for kids and making sure that

they're heard. I mean, dealing with, you know, surveillance issues is the second one. Those kinds of things are the things that help kids in the real world, not by slogans against the First Amendment and the Internet. You've been such a staunch advocate against surveillance technology and surveillance tech and advocating for user privacy. What do you think people are misunderstanding about these tech companies in the way that they, you know, harvest data and just the broader sort of surveillance industry? I think that, as you said, everybody wants to do something. And so there's this big furor about what to do.

And I've given specific examples. And I realize that it takes more time to get our side of the case out. And that's why programs like this are so important. When listeners pay attention, they go to their legislators and say, look, you know, I'm in favor of the First Amendment. And I want to see some concrete actions like we're talking about in terms of the legal advocates and the surveillance protections. Design development also becomes a factor here. Those are the things that we need and will actually help kids and families. You were very against the TikTok ban as well.

And I think that that's kind of an example of maybe bad tech policy where it seems like now we have this new ownership. But it doesn't seem like our data is any more really protected from bad actors. Well, I'm also very concerned about the mega owners being involved in this. As you know, the biggest single thing that Donald Trump did after Trump won was over is he persuaded his friends to go out and buy up everything in sight in terms of communications. And he's using that right now. I mean, I'm still concerned about connections to China and the like. So there are some foreign policy issues.

I'm on the Intelligence Committee, so can't get into that. But the reality is we have to follow up those issues in order to protect families and kids. There are people that say, okay, well, I don't really want to revoke Section 230. I don't want to overturn it, but I want to reform it. Well, how about if we start with a privacy policy? I mean, to me, I'm so glad, Taylor, that you got into that because that's a crucial kind of issue. I happen to feel very strongly that getting rid of 230 hurts the, First Amendment, setting up a privacy policy is a winner across the political spectrum.

I had a set of questions for the Intelligence Committee a couple of days ago, and I pointed out that security and liberty aren't mutually exclusive. Good policy gets you both. Not so good policy gets you less. And privacy is a hugely important issue. And I would also go after the MAGA owners with antitrust policy. Why haven't more people in Congress wanted to pass privacy laws? It seems like our data privacy is sort of constantly being exploited. Why hasn't that gone through? Clearly right now, the Trump people don't want that. But recently, I was at an Intelligence Committee open hearing,

and I asked point blank, is privacy a national security issue? The answer to that is absolutely. And one of the reasons that I feel so strongly about the First Amendment is that's one of the ways we're going to nail these data brokers. You know, what you have are data brokers picking up on everybody's information in sight. I think we ought to have more discussion about it, and that takes the First Amendment. There's a lot of concern about algorithms, and you hear a lot of people, especially parents, saying, oh, I'm worried about these like algorithms affecting our child.

How could something like, you know, data privacy laws protect young people from being targeted, you know, with algorithms or dangerous content? Well, you know, with my legislation to make sure that we protect the consumer, I've got something called the Algorithm Accountability Act, which ensures that there are basic protections. for people who are buying and using various kinds of services. But in regard to the First Amendment, the Ban Surveillance Advertising Act would essentially do what we need to do in terms of dealing with the worst of the business models.

You make it harder for big tech to target the users with objectionable content. You take a sledgehammer to the incentives, to design platforms, to chase user engagement, and you begin to move in the right direction. That's what I'm saying is, I think we've got to start moving in the right direction. in the right direction on algorithms.

Yeah. How do you see this movement growing? I mean, I feel like you are one of the few people in Congress that really stands up for privacy, for free expression online. But it seems like it's not a widespread opinion. How do you get more people on your side and what advice do you give to people who care about protecting Section 230, you know, to try to broaden the movement to protect this law? I think we're starting to pick up additional sponsors. You look at, you know, our effort to go after Musk and some of the obscene things he's done that

affect families and kids online. I'm getting members of Congress come up and say, hey, I read overseas. They're talking about banning it. How can we do that here? I mean, would you want to ban like X completely? I wouldn't ban it completely, but I'd certainly restrict some of what Musk is doing and people all over the world have been picking up on our leadership on that. Yeah, absolutely. I guess I also see a lot of that stuff weaponized, though, where it is like, I think there's so much anger, especially on the left, like rightful frustration and anger with big tech, with people like, And Zuckerberg and Musk just coutowing to Trump. But I see a lot of that stuff get co-opted by people seeking to push identity verification laws, remove privacy, kids online safety stuff.

I have great reservations about ID verification laws. I think that the cure is worse than the problem. And what I think really they need to do is tell the grassroots folks to protect 230 and say free speech. That to me is the ultimate message of this discussion. Yeah, I mean, the identity verification laws are very terrifying to me and seem very dangerous, but it seems like they're getting very wrapped up with Section 230 where people are saying we need mass age verification, identity verification, and to dismantle Section 230. And I'm coming back hard to say that this cure is worse than the problem.

Is there anything else that you think people should know about Section 230 that is misunderstood, that you really want the public to understand about this law and just like the formative role that it has played on the Internet over so many years? I want them to know that this is an issue that they should go to their legislators on and say this is about the First Amendment. This is about making sure that people without power and clout can be heard. That's right at the heart of what I've done from the very beginning, Taylor. People say, well, you're helping big tech. I've given you examples.

I mean, a lot of what we're doing helps knitting organizations. It helps LGBTQ efforts. It helps people who don't have power, who don't have clout. And that to me is what we ought to do. You asked about the future of communications. I want to do as much as I can to say that political change doesn't start in Washington, D.C. or in a legislature. It starts at the grassroots. And at the grassroots, what people want is making sure that they're not censored and that they can be heard.

There's a great post on tech dirt, iconic website that says your problem is not with Section 230. It's with the First Amendment. I'm going to quit while I'm ahead and not take on Maznik. They're making the point that I've been making for years. Yeah, they do phenomenal work. We love tech dirt. You know what? You really blew through all my questions.

I'm trying to think, is there anything else that we didn't talk about that you think is really important for people to know? I think we covered a lot of ground. And you said, you know, people are saying, well, we better do something about Section 230. I'm open to any and all ideas. But as I say, they've got to be improvements. And we talk just now about things like advertising, surveillance, and the like. These are things where we can actually help people and aren't slogans. That's what I'm open to and I want people to know that I'd like to hear from them.

And I appreciate your program and hope we can do it again. All right. That's it for part two of my series covering Section 230, the most crucial but often misunderstood law that created the modern internet. This series is 100% funded by people like you. So if you like my work, please support me on Patreon via the link below or buy a paid subscription to my tech and online culture substack newsletter usermag at usermag. That's usermag.co, where I do biweekly roundups of everything that I'm reading and seeing online. You can also get my newsletter on my Patreon, where I do behind the scenes content, monthly Q&As, bonus episodes of power user, my podcast, and more. I currently have zero long-term advertisers. I actually tried to get this series sponsored by so many people.

You would think that an entire series breaking down a foundational internet law that literally allows all of these platforms and internet companies to exist would be something that, some company out there would want to sponsor. But no, because I criticize big tech and I criticize people in power. And that does not lead to a lot of advertising and brand deals. So seriously, every dollar of your support makes such a difference. Again, you can find the links to my Patreon and substack below. Thank you so much for watching. I'll be back soon for episode three in my section 230 series.