Repeal section 230. If they want to shape speech for their own agenda then they should be liable.

Right now they have it both ways. They have the users, money, and data and they speak through their moderation decisions while being legally immune from consequences.

We need something different than "repeal 230" because this is largely believed to be something that will chill speech. Platforms will take down speech out of an abundance of caution.

I'm not exactly sure what the answer is, but we can place two constraints

1. Anyone can say anything online, free speech for individuals

2. Algorithms that act as "editors" are not free speech and should be regulated.

Perhaps the answer is to say that social media algorithms can only be chronological and M0% from your direct network.

Reposts and quotes seem to be one of the core features that enable virality and dog piling. We need to "slow the spread" - to borrow a phase from one of our least favorite times.

Another thing we need is a privacy preserving method for proving humanism online.

And they literally exercise more editorial control and reach than any magazine or newspaper editorial board ever did.

Section 230 was a Trojan Horse.

If they want to be treated like an innocent carrier (i.e., telco), they must kill their algorithms.

No news media company writes or says the reports of the journalists they publish or broadcast, but they are nevertheless responsible for that content.

If social media wants to control the algorithmic feed for profit, they must be like any media, "fully responsible for their content", and must be held accountable for it.

You Facebook et al. to be _more_ aggressive in their content takedowns (out of concern for liability)?

You do realize that will accomplish the exact opposite of what you're trying to achieve right?

I've thought about this a lot. Section 230 essentially differentiates content sites into two categories, which I refer to as:

1. Publishers. Think CNN, NYT, WaPo, etc. These are first-party sites;

2. Platforms. Think any social media site. They host user generated content ("UGC").

Section 230 doesn't use this exact language. But what it does is remove the strict liability from UGC for (2). So if I post something defamatory on Facebook, Meta isn't liable as long as they satisfy their obligations for moderation, takedowns, etc.

My opinion is that social media sites are essentially cheating. They're now a third category. They enjoy the benefits of being a platform while acting like a publisher.

Think about it this way: let's say a group of users make 1000 posts supporting Ukraine and 1000 posts supporting Russia in the current war. Posts from some of each might make defamatory of erroneous or intentionally false claims. But I, as the platform, use algorithms to surface certain posts and suppress others through a newsfeed, a recommendation panel or whatever. I can tweak that algorithm to surface the pro-Ukrainian posts or the pro-Russian posts. I am essentially taking a position and acting like a first-party publisher but I don't have strict liability issues.

So I don't think we need to repeal Section 230. I think we need to treat content suppression and promotion as being a publisher because that's what you are.