
想象回到1996年。你打開臺式電腦(開機需要好幾分鐘),聽著調(diào)制解調(diào)器連接萬維網(wǎng)發(fā)出的有節(jié)奏的刺耳嘶鳴聲,隨后登錄初代留言板[如美國在線(AOL)或Prodigy],在上面討論個人愛好(從豆豆娃到最新的混音帶)。
彼時,一部鮮為人知的法案——《通信規(guī)范法》第230條剛剛通過。這份僅有26個單詞的法案締造了現(xiàn)代互聯(lián)網(wǎng)。其立法初衷是使那些對網(wǎng)站內(nèi)容進行管理的“好心人”獲得監(jiān)管豁免,將內(nèi)容責(zé)任歸于個人用戶,而非托管公司。
如今,盡管互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)早已實現(xiàn)跨越式發(fā)展,且批評者不斷提出反對意見(如今賽富時首席執(zhí)行官馬克·貝尼奧夫也加入了批評者的行列),但這部法案卻基本保持不變。
周二,在世界經(jīng)濟論壇一場題為“新增長源自何處”的對話中,貝尼奧夫猛烈抨擊《通信規(guī)范法》第230條,稱這項法案讓科技巨頭無需為人工智能和社交媒體帶來的危害擔(dān)責(zé)。
“美國《通信規(guī)范法》第230條這類法規(guī)需要重新修訂,原因在于科技公司完全無需為其對家庭造成的傷害承擔(dān)責(zé)任。”貝尼奧夫在小組討論中強調(diào)。參與討論的嘉賓還包括安盛集團(Axa)首席執(zhí)行官托馬斯·布伯爾(Thomas Buberl)、Alphabet總裁露絲·波拉特(Ruth Porat)、阿聯(lián)酋政府官員卡爾杜恩·哈利法·阿爾·穆巴拉克(Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak),以及彭博社記者弗朗辛·拉夸(Francine Lacqua)。
隨著越來越多美國兒童使用人工智能、登錄社交媒體平臺,貝尼奧夫指出這項法案正在威脅兒童和家庭的安全。這位億萬富翁質(zhì)問道:“對我們而言,增長和孩子,哪個更重要?增長和家庭,哪個更重要?抑或是,增長和社會基本價值觀,哪個更重要?”
為科技企業(yè)“保駕護航”的第230條
當(dāng)涉入用戶受害相關(guān)的法律訴訟時,科技企業(yè)往往會援引《通信規(guī)范法》第230條作為辯護依據(jù)。以2019年的“福爾斯訴臉書案”(Force v. Facebook)為例:在恐怖組織哈馬斯利用臉書平臺煽動他人在以色列實施謀殺后,平臺算法還為哈馬斯成員提供聯(lián)絡(luò)渠道,但法院裁定臉書無需承擔(dān)相關(guān)責(zé)任。這項法案還可能使科技公司無需為人工智能平臺造成的危害擔(dān)責(zé),包括生成深度偽造內(nèi)容,以及人工智能生成的性虐待素材。
自2019年以來,貝尼奧夫一直公開批評《通信規(guī)范法》第230條,多次呼吁廢除該法案。
近年來,隨著民主黨與共和黨對該法案提出質(zhì)疑,《通信規(guī)范法》第230條面臨日益嚴(yán)苛的公眾審視。2019年,特朗普政府執(zhí)政期間,美國司法部對該法案啟動全面審查。2020年5月,因推特(Twitter)對特朗普發(fā)布的推文添加事實核查標(biāo)簽,特朗普總統(tǒng)簽署行政令,限制科技平臺依據(jù)該法案享有的豁免權(quán)。2023年,美國最高法院審理了“岡薩雷斯訴谷歌案”(Gonzalez v. Google),但法院基于其他法律依據(jù)作出裁決,并未觸動《通信規(guī)范法》第230條的核心內(nèi)容。
2025年12月,達(dá)特茅斯大學(xué)商學(xué)院教授斯科特·安東尼(Scott Anthony)在接受《財富》雜志采訪時,表達(dá)了對人工智能領(lǐng)域現(xiàn)有“防護欄”及“防護欄”缺失的擔(dān)憂。他指出,汽車剛問世時,限速規(guī)定和駕照制度也是經(jīng)過一段時間才得以確立。而如今在人工智能領(lǐng)域,“技術(shù)已經(jīng)落地,行業(yè)規(guī)范還在摸索階段,但如果秉持‘放任不管’的態(tài)度,我認(rèn)為后果將不堪設(shè)想。”
安東尼補充道,在我看來,讓平臺免于擔(dān)責(zé)的決定“對世界并無益處。遺憾的是,在人工智能領(lǐng)域,我們正在重蹈覆轍。”
在貝尼奧夫看來,推動廢除《通信規(guī)范法》第230條,其意義絕不僅限于加強對科技企業(yè)的監(jiān)管,更在于重新調(diào)整發(fā)展優(yōu)先級——將安全置于首位,摒棄無節(jié)制的增長模式。“在這個高速增長的時代,我們沉迷于增長本身,”貝尼奧夫表示,“但我們應(yīng)借此契機,銘記我們同樣重視社會價值觀。”(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:中慧言-王芳
想象回到1996年。你打開臺式電腦(開機需要好幾分鐘),聽著調(diào)制解調(diào)器連接萬維網(wǎng)發(fā)出的有節(jié)奏的刺耳嘶鳴聲,隨后登錄初代留言板[如美國在線(AOL)或Prodigy],在上面討論個人愛好(從豆豆娃到最新的混音帶)。
彼時,一部鮮為人知的法案——《通信規(guī)范法》第230條剛剛通過。這份僅有26個單詞的法案締造了現(xiàn)代互聯(lián)網(wǎng)。其立法初衷是使那些對網(wǎng)站內(nèi)容進行管理的“好心人”獲得監(jiān)管豁免,將內(nèi)容責(zé)任歸于個人用戶,而非托管公司。
如今,盡管互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)早已實現(xiàn)跨越式發(fā)展,且批評者不斷提出反對意見(如今賽富時首席執(zhí)行官馬克·貝尼奧夫也加入了批評者的行列),但這部法案卻基本保持不變。
周二,在世界經(jīng)濟論壇一場題為“新增長源自何處”的對話中,貝尼奧夫猛烈抨擊《通信規(guī)范法》第230條,稱這項法案讓科技巨頭無需為人工智能和社交媒體帶來的危害擔(dān)責(zé)。
“美國《通信規(guī)范法》第230條這類法規(guī)需要重新修訂,原因在于科技公司完全無需為其對家庭造成的傷害承擔(dān)責(zé)任。”貝尼奧夫在小組討論中強調(diào)。參與討論的嘉賓還包括安盛集團(Axa)首席執(zhí)行官托馬斯·布伯爾(Thomas Buberl)、Alphabet總裁露絲·波拉特(Ruth Porat)、阿聯(lián)酋政府官員卡爾杜恩·哈利法·阿爾·穆巴拉克(Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak),以及彭博社記者弗朗辛·拉夸(Francine Lacqua)。
隨著越來越多美國兒童使用人工智能、登錄社交媒體平臺,貝尼奧夫指出這項法案正在威脅兒童和家庭的安全。這位億萬富翁質(zhì)問道:“對我們而言,增長和孩子,哪個更重要?增長和家庭,哪個更重要?抑或是,增長和社會基本價值觀,哪個更重要?”
為科技企業(yè)“保駕護航”的第230條
當(dāng)涉入用戶受害相關(guān)的法律訴訟時,科技企業(yè)往往會援引《通信規(guī)范法》第230條作為辯護依據(jù)。以2019年的“福爾斯訴臉書案”(Force v. Facebook)為例:在恐怖組織哈馬斯利用臉書平臺煽動他人在以色列實施謀殺后,平臺算法還為哈馬斯成員提供聯(lián)絡(luò)渠道,但法院裁定臉書無需承擔(dān)相關(guān)責(zé)任。這項法案還可能使科技公司無需為人工智能平臺造成的危害擔(dān)責(zé),包括生成深度偽造內(nèi)容,以及人工智能生成的性虐待素材。
自2019年以來,貝尼奧夫一直公開批評《通信規(guī)范法》第230條,多次呼吁廢除該法案。
近年來,隨著民主黨與共和黨對該法案提出質(zhì)疑,《通信規(guī)范法》第230條面臨日益嚴(yán)苛的公眾審視。2019年,特朗普政府執(zhí)政期間,美國司法部對該法案啟動全面審查。2020年5月,因推特(Twitter)對特朗普發(fā)布的推文添加事實核查標(biāo)簽,特朗普總統(tǒng)簽署行政令,限制科技平臺依據(jù)該法案享有的豁免權(quán)。2023年,美國最高法院審理了“岡薩雷斯訴谷歌案”(Gonzalez v. Google),但法院基于其他法律依據(jù)作出裁決,并未觸動《通信規(guī)范法》第230條的核心內(nèi)容。
2025年12月,達(dá)特茅斯大學(xué)商學(xué)院教授斯科特·安東尼(Scott Anthony)在接受《財富》雜志采訪時,表達(dá)了對人工智能領(lǐng)域現(xiàn)有“防護欄”及“防護欄”缺失的擔(dān)憂。他指出,汽車剛問世時,限速規(guī)定和駕照制度也是經(jīng)過一段時間才得以確立。而如今在人工智能領(lǐng)域,“技術(shù)已經(jīng)落地,行業(yè)規(guī)范還在摸索階段,但如果秉持‘放任不管’的態(tài)度,我認(rèn)為后果將不堪設(shè)想。”
安東尼補充道,在我看來,讓平臺免于擔(dān)責(zé)的決定“對世界并無益處。遺憾的是,在人工智能領(lǐng)域,我們正在重蹈覆轍。”
在貝尼奧夫看來,推動廢除《通信規(guī)范法》第230條,其意義絕不僅限于加強對科技企業(yè)的監(jiān)管,更在于重新調(diào)整發(fā)展優(yōu)先級——將安全置于首位,摒棄無節(jié)制的增長模式。“在這個高速增長的時代,我們沉迷于增長本身,”貝尼奧夫表示,“但我們應(yīng)借此契機,銘記我們同樣重視社會價值觀。”(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:中慧言-王芳
Imagine it is 1996. You log on to your desktop computer (which took several minutes to start up), listening to the rhythmic screech and hiss of the modem connecting you to the World Wide Web. You navigate to a clunky message board—like AOL or Prodigy—to discuss your favorite hobbies, from Beanie Babies to the newest mixtapes.
At the time, a little-known law called Section 230 of the Communications Safety Act had just been passed. The law—then just a 26-word document—created the modern internet. It was intended to protect “good samaritans” who moderate websites from regulation, placing the responsibility for content on individual users rather than the host company.
Today, the law remains largely the same despite evolutionary leaps in internet technology and pushback from critics, now among them Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff.
In a conversation at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday, titled “Where Can New Growth Come From?” Benioff railed against Section 230, saying the law prevents tech giants from being held accountable for the dangers AI and social media pose.
“Things like Section 230 in the United States need to be reshaped because these tech companies will not be held responsible for the damage that they are basically doing to our families,” Benioff said in the panel conversation which also included Axa CEO Thomas Buberl, Alphabet President Ruth Porat, Emirati government official Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak, and Bloomberg journalist Francine Lacqua.
As a growing number of children in the U.S. log onto AI and social media platforms, Benioff said the legislation threatens the safety of kids and families. The billionaire asked, “What’s more important to us, growth or our kids? What’s more important to us, growth or our families? Or, what’s more important, growth or the fundamental values of our society?”
Section 230 as a shield for tech firms
Tech companies have invoked Section 230 as a legal defense when dealing with issues of user harm, including in the 2019 case Force v. Facebook, where the court ruled the platform wasn’t liable for algorithms that connected members of Hamas after the terrorist organization used the platform to encourage murder in Israel. The law could shield tech companies from liability for harm AI platforms pose, including the production of deepfakes and AI-Generated sexual abuse material.
Benioff has been a vocal critic of Section 230 since 2019 and has repeatedly called for the legislation to be abolished.
In recent years, Section 230 has come under increasing public scrutiny as both Democrats and Republicans have grown skeptical of the legislation. In 2019 the Department of Justice under President Donald Trump pursued a broad review of Section 230. In May 2020, President Trump signed an Executive Order limiting tech platforms’ immunity after Twitter added fact-checks to his tweets. And in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Gonzalez v. Google, though, decided it on other grounds, leaving Section 230 intact.
In an interview with Fortune in December 2025, Dartmouth business school professor Scott Anthony voiced concern over the “guardrails” that were—and weren’t—happening with AI. When cars were first invented, he pointed out, it took time for speed limits and driver’s licenses to follow. Now with AI, “we’ve got the technology, we’re figuring out the norms, but the idea of, ‘Hey, let’s just keep our hands off,’ I think it’s just really bad.”
The decision to exempt platforms from liability, Anthony added, “I just think that it’s not been good for the world. And I think we are, unfortunately, making the mistake again with AI.”
For Benioff, the fight to repeal Section 230 is more than a push to regulate tech companies, but a reallocation of priorities toward safety and away from unfettered growth. “In the era of this incredible growth, we’re drunk on the growth,” Benioff said. “Let’s make sure that we use this moment also to remember that we’re also about values as well.”