Section 230

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996) is the federal law that says no internet platform can be treated as the publisher of user-generated content — meaning it can't be sued for what its users post. It's what allows Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, and Gab to exist: without it, platforms would either have to review every post before publication (impossible at scale) or be liable for every lawsuit over user content (fatal to the business).

What it means

The law has two key provisions. First, platforms are not publishers — they're not liable for what users say. Second, they have a "Good Samaritan" protection for moderation decisions — they can remove content in good faith without losing their liability shield. This second provision is where the controversy lives: platforms use Section 230 both to moderate aggressively and to avoid accountability for that moderation.

Critics from the right argue that Section 230 gives Big Tech platforms cover to censor political speech without consequences. Critics from the left argue that the liability shield allows platforms to profit from harmful content without accountability. Both sides have introduced legislation to reform or repeal it — for very different reasons.

How it works on Gab

Gab operates under Section 230 like any other platform. Its free speech approach is a policy choice, not a legal requirement. Nothing in Section 230 requires platforms to protect free speech — it merely permits them to moderate as they choose. Gab chooses to moderate minimally, using U.S. law as its floor.

Related terms

Section 230 interacts directly with content moderation policy and deplatforming power. The First Amendment is the constitutional context it operates within. Free speech on private platforms is the policy debate it sits inside.