S.4632, Graham's Online Content Policy Modernization Act, may actually get marked up today. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/12/10/2020/executive-business-meeting . Graham tabled a Manager's Amendment that makes a bad bill worse--it's still designed to tie intermediaries' hands in fighting hate speech, disinfo & other abuse.

A month before the election, @cendemtech and a coalition of civil rights and civil liberties groups warned the Committee that this bill would make the fight against online voter suppression harder: https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2020-09-30-Civil-Society-Coalition-Letter-of-Opposition-to-S4632-final.pdf

The bill limits 230's protections for taking down content to a finite list of subject matter in (c)(2). @daphnehk explains how insidious this is: https://slate.com/technology/2020/10/cda-section-230-graham-doj-reform-content-moderation.html and @BerinSzoka goes in-depth on why doing so is such a bad idea: https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Letter-Big-Tech-Hearing-on-230-10.28.20.pdf

Graham's MA only adds to those threats. It still narrows the set of removal/deprioritization decisions that would get 230 protection & also includes an extensive definition of "good faith" content restriction that's intended to further discourage moderation.

The big picture here is that Graham and other Rs on the committee are continuing to push the idea of adding elements to 230 that would require a factual inquiry by a court (to assess "objectively reasonable beliefs" and "good faith" behind moderation decisions).

That factual inquiry would make litigation over takedown decisions much more expensive, and make providers like Twitter *and* Parler vulnerable to heckler's veto/SLAPP-style litigation threats. Sites don't have to be found actually liable to be bled dry by legal fees.

#Section230 will obviously continue to be a big subject of debate in the next Congress, but Graham's OCPMA is full of bad ideas that should be left behind with the rest of the mess of 2020.