The DISCOURSE Act would significantly change how social media companies and other online platforms are legally protected when users post content. Right now, these companies have broad immunity from lawsuits over what their users post—they can moderate content however they want without much legal risk. This bill would remove that protection for large platforms in specific situations.

Under this bill, big social media companies would lose their legal shield if they're accused of deliberately promoting or suppressing certain viewpoints through their moderation decisions, using algorithms to push content people didn't ask to see, or directly creating or funding content themselves. The bill also says platforms can't use their moderation power to punish people based on their religion. However, companies would keep their legal protections if they remove content that's genuinely harmful or illegal—like child exploitation material or threats—as long as they can show they had a reasonable belief it fell into those categories.

The bill also requires large platforms to be transparent about how they moderate content and to make sure they're offering parental controls to limit what kids can access online. Essentially, this is an attempt to prevent platforms from using their moderation tools to unfairly silence certain political or ideological viewpoints, while still allowing them to remove genuinely dangerous or illegal content. The practical effect would be that platforms could face more lawsuits if they're seen as playing favorites with which viewpoints get amplified or suppressed.

DISCOURSE Act

Rubio, Marco

Disincentivizing Internet Service Censorship of Online Users and Restrictions on Speech and Expression Act or the DISCOURSE Act This bill limits federal liability protections for a user or provider of an interactive computer service (e.g., a social media company) related to content provided by third parties. It also requires a provider that offers its service through a mass-market offering to the public to disclose information about its content moderation activities. The bill removes liability protections (sometimes referred to as section 230 protection) for a provider with a dominant market share if the provider <ul> <li>promotes or suppresses a viewpoint through its content moderation, including by affecting a content creator's revenue;</li> <li>uses automated processes (e.g., algorithms) to target and amplify content provided to a user who has not requested or searched for the content; or</li> <li>solicits, funds, modifies, or otherwise contributes to content.</li> </ul> Currently, a provider retains liability protections even when it restricts access to materials that it considers objectionable. Under this bill, a provider retains protections if restricted materials fall, based on an objectively reasonable belief, into a prescribed list of harmful or unlawful categories. Additionally, the liability protections shall not apply to providers that (1) restrict access to content in a manner that burdens the exercise of religion, or (2) fail to comply with an existing requirement to notify customers of options for limiting a minor's access to harmful online content (e.g., parental controls). The bill also changes legal procedures related to the liability protections, including by specifying that the protection serves as an affirmative defense.