Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Frank Lee's avatar

Section 230 needs to be reformed to better define platform vs publisher. Big tech even today is manipulating content allowance and placement, censoring and generally controlling what they allow on their sites. This is publishing. They cannot have it both ways. The threat to free speech is exactly this... platforms controlling content without liability for the content. What if your Internet service provider did this? Or your cell phone service provider? What about your utilities provider... say your electricity provider cut your service because you liked a comment that criticized some woke meme?

The entire concept of Section 230 protections for big tech was based on the premise of free and open use. Either the site is a platform that minimizes content manipulation only to comply with the law, or it is a publisher that takes agency responsibility for the content and should be liable for the content (or censorship of content).

Expand full comment
Arena's avatar

Certainly this is a complicated and critical topic which is made more problematic because of Sullivan which was a classic case of good facts and bad law. Moreover, the transparent intrusion of the government working with big tech promoting disinformation revealed by the Twitter Files has complicated the issue even further. The law that was meant to protect public square facilitators from defamation risk from random people instead creates a multiplier effect for governments, large media, and tech giants to lie with impunity all while make sure the *little people* get algorithmed out of the equation.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts