This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology Internet This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Media This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Freedom of speech This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

As the bill has been reintroduced in Congress, would it make sense to change the page name, as it has extended beyond 2020? Or do conventions dictate it has to bear the year when it originated? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've made the move and adjusted the lead. --Masem (t) 01:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article half about the bill and half political hit piece, in particular the "events leading up.." section.

Ted Cruz's comments, while true, are unrelated to the bill, which makes no modifications whatsoever to the good samaritan protections he is referencing. Same with the comments of russian interference, Republican leadership, and sites taking down misinformation. This is all related to good samaritan protections section 230(c), which has no amendments under the EARN IT act.

Similarly, how are offhanded comments about "Republican leadership" and an election four years prior relevant to a bill whose co-sponsers have been evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.

This extra "context" materially misleads readers about the actual legal impact of the bill, the pass or failure of which would have no impact on any off the issues raised in that section. 50.34.32.206 (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The EARN IT Act does affect the protections provided by Section 230(c) because it "would open interactive online content platforms to civil and criminal liability for hosting child sexual abuse material if they decline to adopt the Commission's best practices", since the "best practices" are not an existing requirement to obtain the protections. Because of this, the background sections about Section 230 belong in this article.

It would be helpful to mention the positions of Democrats who dislike Section 230, since they are different from the positions of Republicans who dislike Section 230. This article from The Conversation (RSP entry) and the articles it links to have more information:

The coverage in reliable sources shows that the public reception to the EARN IT Act is primarily negative, and the "Reception" section reflects this. As WP:DUE states, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." — Newslinger talk 13:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the following paragraph should be moved from the "Legislative history" section to the "Reception" section, under a new "Members of Congress" subheading that also includes Ron Wyden's comments:

In a statement following the Senate Judiciary Committee's unanimous passage of the bill, Graham praised the bipartisanship against the "scourge of child sexual abuse material and the exploitation of children on the internet."^[1] Further, he asserted that social media companies and internet service providers would be able to defend themselves in a civil suit as long as they employ "the best business practices."^{[1][non-primary source needed]}

Putting only the comments of the bill's sponsors in the "Legislative history" section would slant that section in favor of the bill, when it is otherwise a straightforward description of the bill's progress in Congress. — Newslinger talk 11:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that I was the one who moved that statement to "Legislative history" in the first place, in Special:Diff/984635560. I've self-reverted that in Special:Diff/1072788129, which also splits the "Reception" section into more manageable "Non-governmental organizations", "Members of Congress", and "Media outlets" subsections. — Newslinger talk 13:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page does not seem to discuss at all the potential dangers this bill can pose, which technical experts and activists are frequently alarming the public about. Should it be discussed in the page? Octevemir (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Octevemir[reply]

We have to be careful here because the bill itself doesn't lay out anything specific, it is what the committee will come to decide, which is where there are fears. So its like a step removed. --Masem (t) 01:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]