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.

Well said, I concur. There is so much different information being posted that the platform can "say" anything it wants via moderation knobs without liability.