PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 22, 2023
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
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
promotes or suppresses a viewpoint through its content moderation, including by affecting a content creator's revenue;
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
solicits, funds, modifies, or otherwise contributes to content.
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.
People & committees
Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.921 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.921 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.921 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.921 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.